Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Edward O’Hara in the Chair]

Clause 30

Local development schemes

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Edward O'Hara: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking clauses 31 to 35 stand part and new clause 12—Amendment of TCPA—
‘(1) TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 12(3C) leave out “be in general conformity with” and insert “have regard to”.
(3) In section 13(1A) leave out “is in general conformity with” and insert “has regard to”.
(4) In section 13(5A) leave out “is not in general conformity with” and insert “does not have regard to”.
(5) In section 15(2A) leave out “are in general conformity with” and insert “have regard to”.
(6) Leave out section 21A.
(7) In section 26 leave out subsection (2)(bb).
(8) In section 74 leave out subsections (1B) and (1C).
(9) Leave out section 322B.’.

Yvette Cooper: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. O’Hara. We paused before lunch by agreement not to have an interrupted response to what has been an extensive debate on the planning clauses before us and also, of course, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North a little more time to sharpen up his stories about Scottish footballers. I understand that he has four remaining members of the team to get through by the end of the afternoon.

Stephen Pound: It is unfortunate that the Minister is emulating players such as Neil Simpson and Mark McGee in getting her retaliation in first, but I admire her for it.

Yvette Cooper: The clauses that we have before us and the new clause that we were debating are important components of the Bill. That part of the Bill is about giving the Mayor more responsibility to ensure that housing and affordable housing needs in London are delivered in practice. Currently, the Mayor only has the right to block things and he should be able to support much-needed major strategic development in the interests of the capital as a whole. It is important that there are safeguards to ensure that the discussion is focused around those major strategic applications. I will come on to discuss those because we have set out the order in an attempt to give effect to that intention.

Greg Hands: The Minister talks about the importance of the clauses in delivering affordable housing, but what happens if the democratically elected Mayor has a totally different view from her on the issue of affordable housing? How would she deal with that?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Affordable housing is now so central to London that it will always be of importance to an elected Mayor. However, affordable housing also has wider repercussions across the country in terms of the impact on the London economy and the impact on the wider housing market in other regions. It is an issue that the Secretary of State would always expect to be dealt with properly in London and in other regions. Affordable housing has much wider repercussions.If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that a future Conservative Mayor would not see affordable housing as such a priority, shame on such a future Conservative Mayor—he would certainly struggle to be elected on that basis.

Greg Hands: No, I am certainly not arguing that. I am arguing that there may be a scenario in which there was a maverick Mayor who decided that there should be no affordable housing in London, passed a London plan accordingly, and intervened in the boroughs to try and prevent affordable housing from being built. He may then say that he is able to do so because of the Bill as amended here today and that if people did not like it, they would have to vote him down in the next election.

Yvette Cooper: I should inform the hon. Gentleman that to achieve such a scenario, there would have to be, if not a Conservative Mayor, some kind of maverick right-wing Mayor who was hostile to affordable housing. There would also, in fact, have to be a Conservative or right-wing Government in place who were hostile to affordable housing. We have made clear the importance of affordable housing within the national policy framework and the planning policies that need to be picked up as part of the London plan. Therefore, under the current policy framework, it would simply be impossible to produce a London plan that could pass the planning process and that did not take seriously the needs of Londoners for housing, including affordable and social housing. That is the policy framework in which we operate.

Andrew Slaughter: I hate to criticise my hon. Friend, but I support the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham because the scenario is perhaps not as unlikely as she is making out; in fact the new Conservative council in Hammersmith and Fulham is doing exactly that. It has a principled opposition to all forms of affordable housing. No affordable rented housing, and shared ownership housing only if it is out of the reach of any—[Interruption.]

Edward O'Hara: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a serious point.

Andrew Slaughter: Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. Affordable housing needs to be higher up the political agenda so that those putting themselves forward for the position of Mayor would have to make clear where they stood on this issue. I doubt whether we would see any Conservative mavericks, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham calls them, or any Conservative Mayors elected for the foreseeable future.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Opposition Members may wriggle at the suggestion that perhaps Conservatives might not be as enthusiastic about social housing as they like to protest, but the evidence does not support their protestations.

Siobhain McDonagh: Our debate on affordable housing ignited my interest in my own borough of Merton where a Conservative group is now in power with no overall control. I had a phone call from the leader of the Labour group only an hour ago who explained to me that currently Presentation housing association is considering suing the council as a result of the Conservative group’s decision not to pursue a scheme on which it had already spent quite a large sum of money. As a result of the sitting of the overview and scrutiny panel last night, some cases where the Conservative councillors were trying to get rid of affordable housing will now be referred to the Standards Board. It would seem that there may be a pattern here. It may not just be afflicting trendy west London, but also quieter south London.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not know the circumstances of the individual case and obviously there are limitations on the ability of Ministers to comment on individual cases that may be going through the panel or the standards procedures. However, I am aware from reports that have come to us via the Housing Corporation, which we have asked to look into the current provision of social housing in London, that Merton has been considering adopting a policy that identifies particular areas where it does not believe that there should be additional social housing. Mitcham, for example, is considered an area where no social housing should be built. Concerns have also been raised about the approach from Hammersmith and Fulham council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush has mentioned, and Barnet council too.

Karen Buck: Further to the points that were being made by Opposition Members on this very matter, I checked the figures for affordable housing provision for some of those boroughs and discovered that Barnet, which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath cited in aid of his argument, produced only 8 per cent. affordable housing as against the Mayor’s preferred target of 50 per cent. My own borough of Westminster produced only 11 per cent.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Certainly some of the figures that I have picked up included Bromley, which in 2004-05 delivered 14 per cent. affordable housing. The Committee will be aware that I previously quoted the example of Wandsworth, which in 2005-06 seems to be delivering only nine social homes as supported by the Housing Corporation. In an area as large as Wandsworth that clearly raises some concerns.

Michael Gove: I entirely share the hon. Lady’s concern about the lack of provisionof social housing. Perhaps she could remind the Committee what the figures are for the delivery of social housing overall nationally since 1997. Is it not the case that in every year since 1997, the Government have presided over fewer social housing completions than the preceding 10 Conservative years?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman should be rather cautious about calling on the experience of the early ’90s as the defence of Conservative housing policy. He is certainly right to say that there was a period in the early ’90s when it was rather cheaper to buy back social housing than it was more recently. The previous Government and the housing associations decided that in order to step into what was an extremely shaky housing market, it might be wise to start buying properties that developers were unable to sell because the housing market had gone into freefall. We had a devastating housing market crash and a collapse in land values, triggered by the economic management of the previous Conservative Government. He will appreciate that we would not want to follow that approach to bringing down the costs of delivering more affordable housing.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the Minister for taking us down memory lane once more. There are two important points to make. First, I was talking about the completion of new houses, whereas she was talking about an entirely different process. Secondly, we all agree that there was a period of economic turbulence in the early ’90s, but that period came about because of our entry into the exchange rate mechanism.

Edward O'Hara: Order. That is enough from memory lane. Let us return to the present and the future.

Yvette Cooper: I would point the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to some of the interest rate decisions and economic management decisions that were made in the late ’80s, in advance of the exchange rate mechanism, as being contributory factors. Either way, we are agreed that the economic policy of the previous Conservative Government threw the housing market into freefall and had a devastating impact.
 The hon. Gentleman raised a wider issue about overall house building and housing delivery. He tried to claim that the Conservative boroughs in London were doing well. It is certainly true that Wandsworth, Bromley and Westminster have done better on overall housing than some other boroughs, although they have done relatively badly on affordable housing. Kensington and Chelsea delivered 43 per cent. of its housing target, while Barnet managed 86 per cent. and Redbridge managed only19 per cent. Before the hon. Gentleman tries to parade the Conservative boroughs, he should accept that there is a mixed picture among the London boroughs and that many of his Conservative colleagues are not quite as enthusiastic about additional housing as he might like them to be. Indeed, his colleagues on the Conservative Benches are not as enthusiastic about additional housing as he might wish them to be.

Michael Gove: According to the figures for housing completions in 2003-04 and 2004-05, the boroughs with the weakest performance were Waltham Forest, with 45 per cent., Merton, with 54 per cent., and Lewisham, with 55 per cent. Those three boroughs at the bottom of the league—the Partick Thistle, the Greenock Morton and the Gretna, in Scottish football terms—were all Labour controlled during those years.

Yvette Cooper: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for using the figures for 2005-06, which, being the most recent available figures, seemed to be the most appropriate. As I said, Kensington and Chelsea delivered 43 per cent. of its target and Redbridge, which seems to be one of the worst performers on the list, delivered 19 per cent. of its housing target.

Tom Brake: The Minister is illustrating the point that it is risky to cite individual examples. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush was the leader for Hammersmith and Fulham, although he does not frequently mention his constituency in his interventions. He referred to Islington, which has not sold land at nil value, as Hammersmith and Fulham did when he was the leader, but which has occasionally sold land at market value, so as to get capital receipts that can then be spent on new schools, for instance. When the Minister deals with individual cases, it is important that she should compare apples with apples.

Yvette Cooper: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that Islington had failed to deliver on housing because it was building schools. His intervention did not sound like a ringing endorsement of Islington’s housing approach.

Tom Brake: It is in line with the Mayor’s targets.

Yvette Cooper: Islington is in line with some of the Mayor’s targets, with 93 per cent. in 2005-06 and 76 per cent. in 2004-05. I cannot find the figures for affordable housing swiftly enough for the hon. Gentleman, although some of the other Liberal Democrat boroughs might not have been so successful.

Stephen Pound: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the disparity in performance between boroughs that Opposition Members are parading before us makes the most powerful case for a central strategic role? Does she agree that Opposition Members have made the case for us? Might it not be an idea to move to a Division, given that they will certainly support us on this occasion?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We have before us wide variations. Some will be one-year variations due to land supply issues in a particular borough while others will be more systemic and reflect a borough’s ongoing failure to deliver enough homes to meet the needs not only of the borough, but of the city as a whole. That is a reason why the strategic issues—the wider needs of the city—should also be considered by the Mayor.

Michael Fabricant: I implore the Minister not to listen to the entreaties, siren-like though they may be, of the hon. Member for Ealing, North. While not wishing to go down memory lane, I wish to explain to the hon. Lady that in the ’80s and early ’90s, when I used to advise Gosteleradio, the state television and radio agency of the Soviet Union, I walked every day past Gosplan, the central planning agency of the Soviet Union. It had five-year plans and a central scheme, but not one time did they ever work.

Yvette Cooper: They clearly could have learnt a few lessons from Islington with its achievement of 93 per cent.
Members of the Committee will recognise the importance of the strategic powers that we have discussed many times. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North was entreating me to speed up and put matters to the vote, so I will try to accelerate, although I cannot resist the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who asked a series of wider questions about attitudes towards development. As he said, he wants to champion his party’s credentials in favour of development. However, such matters involve not only the boroughs, but the attitude of MPs towards development.
I would certainly not criticise Conservative MPs who oppose individual planning applications that may be badly designed or inappropriately sited, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman may have taken such action in his constituency, but several of his hon. Friends—not only those on the Back Benches, but those in London—are opposing increased housing overall, especially the shadow Chief Secretary, who has said that suburbs such as Barnet are under attack from the Deputy Prime Minister’s excessive targets for new house building. Moreover, the shadow Minister for London has complained about over-development in Beckenham.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath challenged me to come up with a single incidence of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) arguing against increased housing. I could not resist the temptation to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the words of his right hon. Friend, who said:
“Oxfordshire does not want—and cannot manage—the extra ... houses Labour wants to impose.”
Obviously, I would not have brought the right hon. Gentleman into the debate had the hon. Gentleman not raised such matters. However, I am happy to furnish him with a copy of the right hon. Gentleman’s election manifesto, in which he made those claims. The purpose behind the Bill is to ensure that the overall strategic issues behind the London plan can be delivered, regardless of the politics of individual boroughs or MPs.
Clause 30 deals with local development schemes, which set out what issues the borough will address and what the time scale will be. That will not include the content of the plan, which is an important point, because the clause allows the Mayor to direct the boroughs on what should be in their work programme. For example, if a borough is not planning a strategy on waste, it might be reasonable—given the city’s difficulties in dealing with waste and its importance under the London plan—for the Mayor to consider directing a borough to include a waste document in its planning scheme or to draw up a waste strategy.
The clause will not allow the Mayor to draw up a waste strategy for the borough; it will simply allow him to direct that the borough should include a waste strategy in its planning process.
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath argued that the mayoral power of direction duplicates the Secretary of State’s power of direction. I do not think so. Without the power, the Mayor would have to ask the Secretary of State to intervene on his behalf to deliver the London plan, and things would become more bureaucratic and duplicative. The Government want to devolve to the Mayor and to remove the need for the Secretary of State to intervene in regional issues. The Secretary of State will still be able to direct on national policy issues, but regional issues should be a matter for the Mayor.
Subsections (2) to (7) of new clause 12 would remove the requirement for borough unitary development plans to be in general conformity with the spatial development strategy and replace it with a requirement for them to have regard to it. In practice, the change would apply to the old system of unitary development plans, so it would not have much effect as we are replacing those with local development frameworks. However, I shall address the intention behind the new clause rather than its practical effect.
The Government think that the new clause does not take the right approach. The requirement for general conformity has been part of the planning system for many years, stretching back well before the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The new clause would effectively reduce the boroughs’ requirement to look beyond their borders and do their part in meeting new housing and other development challenges faced by London and the country.

Michael Gove: Is the Minister aware of the briefing from the Mayor’s office discussing the general conformity clause? It says that the clause, which she is defending,
“is a legal minefield that will mean local authorities and the Mayor could end up embroiled in judicial reviews, with London council tax payers footing both sides of the legal bill. This will rightly be seen as a waste of public money.”

Yvette Cooper: I have some shocking news for the hon. Gentleman: we do not agree with the Mayor on everything.

Michael Gove: Only when it is convenient.

Yvette Cooper: The legislation that we have introduced reflects the best approach, as set out in much wider planning legislation. As I said, it involves a principle that has been in planning legislation for a long time.
There is a difference between conformity and general conformity. General conformity does not mean slavish adherence to individual details of the plan. Only where a borough plan contains an inconsistency or omission that would cause significant harm to the London plan’s implementation should it be considered not in general conformity. The fact that a borough plan is inconsistent with one or more of the plan’s detailed policies, either directly or by omission, does not necessarily mean that it is not in general conformity. The test is how significant the inconsistency is to overall delivery of the London plan.

Martin Linton: In that case, if the phrase “general conformity” is legally clear, how clear is “have regard to”?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The phrase “have regard to” is used not just in the Bill, but in other aspects of legislation, and I think that it is seen as weaker than “general conformity”. Clearly, judgments must be made about the strength of the relationship for different aspects of the Bill, the planning process and other development processes. We think that “general conformity” captures the relationship that ought to exist between individual borough plans and the London plan. It has done so for some time, and it reflects the long-standing planning policy relationship between local and regional plans.

Bob Neill: I am interested in that point. This morning, we were told that an obligation on the Mayor to “have regard to” the assembly’s views will strengthen its position. Now we are told that that is a rather weaker concept. Clearly, what is good enough for the assembly is not good enough for the Mayor. Do I take it that the Minister wishes the Mayor to have a greater hold over the boroughs than the assembly has over the Mayor?

Yvette Cooper: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is following the details of which issues we are discussing, but I think that it is right that the Mayor should have regard for the assembly’s views. The expectation that the Mayor be in general conformity with the assembly on a series of issues is challenging. The role of the assembly is to scrutinise; the role of the Mayor is to be the executive force in the city.

Bob Neill: The Minister has missed my point. If the use of the term “general regard” is good in one context, why should the Mayor not have general regard for a borough’s development plans in the same way that he should have general regard for the assembly’s comments?

Yvette Cooper: Okay, now we have a third variable. We have “have regard to”, “have general regard” and “have general consistency”. We also have the possibility of “consistency”. There is a series of variables that we could apply. The point I made earlier was that different variables will apply to different sections of the Bill, because we are talking about different relationships and the different roles that the executive and scrutiny parts of the GLA must fulfil.
As we made clear on Second Reading, we are strengthening the position of the assembly. The independent inspector who examines a borough’s draft plan is the final arbiter of general conformity, not the Mayor. The Mayor can give his formal opinion, but the inspector rules on the issue.
New clause 12(8) would remove the power of the Mayor to refuse a planning application that was contrary to the London plan. It would not be right to remove that power, which is about dealing with major strategic planning applications. However, the issue goes to the heart of the disagreement between us. There are some strategic issues that affect London as a whole, over which it is important that we take a London-wide view. The decisions of an individual borough can have an impact not only on neighbouring boroughs, but on the city as a whole, its housing market and its prosperity. On that basis, it is right that the Mayor should continue to have the power to direct that planning applications be turned down.

Greg Hands: Will the Minister reassure us that the proposed procedures conform with the Human Rights Act 1998? She will be aware of controversies in recent years concerning that Act and the right to make representations in person when a planning decision is being taken.
A House of Commons Library paper states:
“Case law from both the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights has accepted that the taking of planning decisions by democratically elected politicians does not breach the convention. However, that conclusion is partly dependent upon procedural guarantees of fairness.”
Will the Minister tell us what the “procedural guarantees of fairness” in the proposed process are, given that it appears that decisions could be taken in behind-closed-doors meetings that nobody else is allowed to attend?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I will say more in due course about the procedures that need to apply and the safeguards that need to be in place, as well as about the safeguards provided by the Human Rights Act and the common law. First, I shall finish my remarks on new clause 12.
In the past six years, the Mayor has carried through 18 directions in London—an average of three per year. That number is out of an average of about 90,000 planning applications per year. I calculate that0.003 per cent. of planning applications in London are so directed by the Mayor. I am sure that a correction will flutter its way toward me if I have miscalculated my percentages, but 0.003 per cent. seems like a small proportion of planning applications. Therefore, it is right that the Mayor continues to have the power of direction.
Clause 31 introduces a parallel positive power. The Mayor currently has the power to block applications—what are effectively negative, anti-development powers, which can stop things that are important to the London plan. Those powers should be balanced bythe ability to support things that are important to the London plan, as against taking an unbalanced, anti-development approach.

Andrew Pelling: The Mayor is arguing in favour of the Bill on the basis that he will have involvement with only 1 per cent. of planning applications. If the Minister’s calculations are correct, that suggests that the number of applications he considers will go up by 333 per cent. If that is the case, surely it is too radical a change in approach to all planning applications.

Yvette Cooper: Okay, I said that the Mayor had taken a decision on 0.003 per cent. of applications—not 3 per cent., but 0.003 per cent. That applies to the average number of cases on which he has taken a decision as a proportion of the planning applications in the most recent year; there may have been more applications in a previous year, which would change the percentages accordingly. Either way, 0.003 per cent. or 0.001 per cent. both seem pretty small figures to me.

Andrew Pelling: I apologise for misleading the Committee. The figure of 333 per cent. was far too low—the number of applications that the Mayor would consider would be 333 times larger. The Mayor is arguing that he should have control of 1 per cent. of total applications; if the Minister says that he currently controls 0.003 per cent. of them, 1 per cent. would represent a huge change.

Yvette Cooper: There may be some confusion about the number of decisions that the Mayor has taken and the number of cases that pass the threshold set out in the schedule. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall come to those issues later, rather than go round in circles discussing different small percentages.
Opposition Members are uneasy about any planning—

Greg Hands: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: Yes, but I shall then make some progress.

Greg Hands: I thank the Minister for giving way. May I take her back to Boxing day? It is worth considering how the Mayor is going about rejecting planning applications. Does she approve of a press release being issued to the Evening Standard on a no-approach basis on Boxing day? Is that the correct way for an elected person to determine planning applications in this country?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman obviously has concerns about the Mayor’s work-life balance and the timing of his holidays. Many of us would not want to issue press releases on Boxing day. Nevertheless, it is not for me to discuss with the Mayor exactly when he chooses to issue them.

Greg Hands: One advantage of the existing planning system—I mentioned it earlier—is that a planning report comes before a democratically elected and open committee that considers the officer’s recommendation and determines “yea” or “nay” accordingly. In turn, that recommendation will have been made after an investigation of the planning document, whether before a plan or a Bible.
The application that I mentioned was rejected by the Mayor on Boxing day. The report in front of him stated,
“on balance, the application will deliver substantial numbers of affordable homes, significantly above the overall strategic target for boroughs.”
Is the Minister still such a fan of the new process? Under it, the Mayor will be able to determine hundreds of applications across London in that way.

Yvette Cooper: No. I want to respond to that specific point, but only after I have made a little progress. The hon. Gentleman will know that obviously I cannot comment on individual cases that may yet go through the appeal process. He should also take into account the parallels with the Secretary of State’s planning process and not simply that of planning committees. However, I shall come back to the issue.
What we are discussing involves a city-wide role; big developments have an impact on the city as a whole, and that is why there should be a positive role for the Mayor—[Interruption.]

Edward O'Hara: Order. If Committee members wish to conduct audible conversations, I would prefer them to do so outside.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. We want the Mayor to intervene in and take decisions on only a small handful of cases; we do not think that he should decide a large number of cases. The order is designed to achieve what we want. It will be consulted on, and we will take into account the views expressed in this Committee as part of that consultation.
 I should clarify the most recent figures. Some 90,000 planning applications are ongoing in London—there are sometimes as many as 100,000—and the current arrangements for the Mayor’s negative powers mean that about 300 cases a year are over the size threshold. That is about 0.3 per cent of cases—less than 1 per cent. of cases. The Mayor has on average used his powers of direction on three cases a year, because the fact that a case is above the threshold does not mean that it is necessarily an appropriate one for intervention. We are also applying the same threshold to the positive powers on housing, retail and commercial development. We are changing the thresholds on waste, and I hope that hon. Members will support our proposals, given the significance of waste issues for the Committee. I know that we shall discuss those later.

Michael Gove: On a point of clarification, of those applications that passed above the size threshold, what proportion did so as a result of the space that they occupied—the square footage or square meterage—what proportion did so because of the size of the development, by which I mean the number of dwellings, and what proportion did so because of their height?

Yvette Cooper: I do not have the detailed figures to hand. I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with them, if he so chooses. He raises the kind of issue that we can discuss as part of the consultation on the order. As I said, we are applying the same thresholds to the positive powers on housing, retail and commercial development. That means that we would not expect any additional cases in those categories to be referred to the Mayor or to be passing the thresholds as a result of introducing these new powers. We are talking not about an increase in the number of cases referred to the Mayor but about continuing with the existing thresholds. All of those cases will currently be passing the thresholds, so we are not causing an increase.
We are changing the thresholds on waste and our approach on casinos and bus depots, and there are specific reasons for our doing so in each case. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a specific point about casinos. He will be aware that the decision to issue a casino’s premises licence still rests with the London borough, as the licensing authority. It would not be possible for the Mayor to give the go-ahead to a casino and for a casino to start running in a borough that did not want one, because the borough retains the ability to license the casino in the first place.

Greg Hands: I think that the Minister omitted tram stops and depots. Can she confirm whether they are included, as that is of particular interest in west London, given the Mayor’s controversial proposal for a west London tram?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the wording of the draft Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2007. We have added the specific reference to bus depots, because the Mayor has a concern that bus depots might be under pressure from housing or retail development and they are desperately needed to provide for the increase in buses and transport in the capital. If I may, I shall wait for the detailed clarification on trams to spring into my mind. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the order is not specifically being debated in this Committee. We will consult more widely on it, and I am happy to get back to him on that matter.
I return to the core issue of the number of cases to be decided by the Mayor. We are not increasing the number of cases that will pass the threshold. We are making it clear that there are additional tests in the order. The Mayor will need to demonstrate that a development is
“of such a nature or scale that there would be a significant impact on the implementation of the spatial development strategy.”
He must also take into account how far the council is delivering on the “relevant targets”. “Relevant” is important, because if the application were a housing application and the borough were meeting its housing target, that would be something that one would expect the Mayor to take into account—rather than him simply saying that there were grounds for intervention because the borough was not meeting its waste targets, for example. If a borough is delivering well on both affordable and overall housing, the application may be less significant to the London plan than if the borough is persistently failing to deliver the homes that are needed. That is the kind of territory around which the Mayor will need to make the case.

Michael Gove: On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Mayor would be able to exercise his powers only over planning applications that went to the heart of the London plan, whereas in the order a new form of words is used that covers applications with a “significant impact.” As we all know, going to the heart of the London plan would mean tearing it apart, or propping it up. Significant impact is a lesser threshold. Will the Minister say why the threshold was weakened between Second Reading and the order?

Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have consulted extensively across and beyond London on a series of different possible tests, and we will consult further as part of the order. We are attempting to find a workable form of words that will allow some kind of clarity for developers, for the boroughs and for the Mayor as well. We are open to responses during the consultation, and we shall continue to consider. For example, we looked at whether there should be a geographic test—that was one of the issues on which we consulted as part of the earlier review. I think that there are still significant merits to that test, but London First argued that it would lead to greater uncertainty, and it was uneasy about it. Nevertheless, we will listen to the consultation response. Our clear intention is for the Mayor to decide on a small handful of cases—the same as for the negative powers, and the order should properly support that. The cases should be the right ones, and the right strategic focus should be delivered, but we shall continue to listen. After representations from London Councils and from London First, we have also changed the process so that the Mayor does not take over cases at the beginning, and can intervene only after the borough has dealt with the case in the normal way.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked some questions on the schedule, and there was an issue about whether category 3B included a wider category of cases. The provision simply transposes the thresholds and categories that were in place for the negative power. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I do not want the order to end up covering cases in which—simply coincidentally—there is a development in the same area as one that is completely unrelated yet happens to have occurred in the previous five years. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that there are also cases in which the planning applications for major developments are submitted in phases. Individual applications concentrate on a section of the plan, but the overall development may be extremely significant, so that overall strategic importance needs to be considered.
 We believe that the existing definition of negative powers has not caused problems and we are therefore inclined to retain it, particularly as people are used to working with it, but I have asked officials to consider that and examine the cases that are emerging in practice. I am happy to examine further representations from boroughs if problems are being caused in practice.
 The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington also asked some broader questions about the schedules. May I say to hon. Members that as far as possible we have replicated the criteria for the negative powers, because that allows for consistency and a simple standard, and tends to simplify the planning process? However, we recognise that in some areas the categories have been designed around the negative powers and therefore might not apply as appropriately to the positive ones. So we envisage certain adjustments and changes and will listen to the consultation responses to ensure that we give best effect to our policy intention, rather than produce confusing or perverse consequences owing to the way in which we have replicated the approach to the negative powers.
Hon. Members asked about propriety, which is important. The Mayor will indeed be an individual decision maker and we have made it clear that he cannot delegate his powers to someone else if, for example, he has a conflict of interest, financial interest or development conflict. He will be the decision maker in the same way as a Secretary of State, but there will be some applications on which he should not and cannot make a decision, such as those on certain Olympic developments because he has clearly championed the Olympics. That is one of the reasons that the Olympic Development Agency’s powers will not be one of the areas in which he can take control of decision making—clearly he cannot play both roles. That is important.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for that clarification. As well as championing the Olympics, the Mayor has championed tall buildings. Yet the Bill contains a provision for him to intervene on planning applications for buildings more than 30 m high—10 storeys. If the Mayor cannot intervene in Olympic planning applications because he has, in technical terms, a predetermined view, why on earth should he be given the freedom to interfere in tall building applications when he has, in planning terms, an explicitly predetermined view?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the process contains a series of safeguards, which I shall spell out to Opposition Members. It is important that decisions be taken fairly, that people do not take them on matters in which they have a personal or financial interest, where they have not considered all the evidence or where they could be said to have prejudged the application. In the current process, those safeguards apply to planning committees and the Secretary of State and are in common law as well as codes of practice—they are not in primary legislation. The Mayor must abide by that common law in precisely the same way as Secretaries of State and planning committees. He must also have a clear code of practice to ensure transparency in the way in which he operates.

Greg Hands: But if those safeguards are so strong—from what the Minister says, they sound very strong—why is it still necessary to exempt the Olympics? My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath asked about the difference between predetermination in Olympic applications and those for tall buildings.

Yvette Cooper: The issue around the Olympics is that there is no need to include it. We did not make a specific decision that, because of the Olympics and propriety issues, we need additional safeguards or consideration. We do not think that there is any need to include the Olympics because, given the Mayor’s championing role, he should not be taking those decisions. There is a series of reasons for that. I do not think that it is about providing extra special protection—there is simply no need for the Mayor to have that role. Obviously, he will have to take his own decisions to ensure that in other cases where he is playing the role of champion he should not take over the planning application process and go against those common law safeguards, which will be in his code of conduct as well. Whether that prevents him from taking over policy issues is a different matter because, for example, the Secretary of State could be said to champion issues such as the green belt, zero-carbon homes and so on. Nobody argues that because the Secretary of State has championed those policies it is inappropriate for him to be the decision maker in an appeal. That is the difference in practice.

Bob Neill: Will the Minister help me? I have been following her argument carefully and I understand what she is saying, but I am concerned about a practical matter. She said earlier that the Mayor would not be able to delegate his planning powers. I agree that, equally, there are certain circumstances in which on the face of it, applications that pass the test and should be determined by the Mayor, should not be, because of the championing role. But who then would take the decision? Would it go upwards to the Secretary of State or should somebody else deal with it? The Mayor has no junior Minister.

Yvette Cooper: Indeed, so the borough would take the decision unless the Secretary of State called it in for some reason. The issue is simply about the Mayor having to choose under which circumstances he can exercise the powers that the Bill specifies. The Bill does not simply operate as a constraint on the cases in which the Mayor can intervene; there is also the common law and issues about propriety.
Hon. Members have raised questions about the Mayor taking decisions on his own. We must recognise that Secretaries of State are individual decision makers, and that they can take decisions on their own, in the bath or while shaving, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested. I caution hon. Members about the idea of having to take the decision in public, because we could end up with an awful lot of people having a boring time while the Mayor sits and ponders matters. Important issues have been raised about whether evidence should be heard in public. There is no substantial issue in principle about the Mayor being an individual decision maker, however, as those provisions exist in our current system.
The Mayor would not be able to take over an application on the basis of small concerns about section 106 disagreements; any takeover would have to be on the basis of an application’s significant impact on the London plan. It would be hard to argue that a limited section 106 disagreement had a significant impact on the London plan. That is the crux of the decision making. The resources from the section 106 agreement would go to the organisations responsible for providing those services, just as they do normally.
It is sensible to provide for a positive power that matches the negative power. It will apply only to a small number of cases, and we will continue to consult on the order and how we ensure that we get the details right. The provision will help with the delivery of the London plan, which is important, and it will allow a sensible, strategic approach to an important capital city that requires good planning for its economy and its housing market.

Greg Hands: I made a specific point, which the Minister has not answered, about the compatibility of the process with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Yvette Cooper: We believe that the legislation is compatible with the Human Rights Act, and one of us has signed a declaration to that effect. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is an obligation on every public body to interpret the legislation in compliance with the Act, too. There are some interesting issues about being able to hear evidence in public, and the taking of the decision in public may be impractical. We do not require the Secretary of State to take her decisions in public, with people sitting around her as she does so. The legislation before us complies with the Human Rights Act, and all powers would need to be exercised in compliance with it.

Andrew Pelling: The current Mayor would be very happy to take those decisions in public. Does the Minister think that he has shown a misjudgment as to its practicality in expressing that view?

Yvette Cooper: If the current Mayor wants a load of people with him as he pores over documents, he is welcome to do so. We are cautious about requiring it in legislation, but it is important to provide transparency of process. I am not sure how much transparency there is in sitting in a room and watching someone’s face twitch while they read particular pages of a document. That is slightly different from a public committee. Nevertheless, the Mayor will have some scope to choose how he interprets certain aspects of the Bill. With that, I urge hon. Members to allow the clauses to stand part of the Bill, and to reject new clause 12.

Michael Gove: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. O’Hara. I begin by giving notice to the Committee that we would like to press new clause 12 to a Division at the appropriate moment later in the Committee’s proceedings. I would also like to give notice that we are disappointed that the Minister, after the force of logic deployed earlier in the debate, still feels that she has to stand by the clauses and has not recognised how poorly drafted they were by those whom she charged with that duty.
I want to mention three things in emphasising why we feel that it is important to insist that the clauses be removed. First, I congratulate the Minister on noting that the hon. Member for Ealing, North had managed, in the debate this morning, to mention seven members of the Aberdeen football team who won the European Cup Winners Cup in 1983. She pointed out that he still had four to name. I have to correct her on a point of fact—it is always painful for me to do so. There are in fact five whom the hon. Gentleman still has to name because, as she will be aware, there was a late substitution that materially affected the result of that football match.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman is defending his position much in the style of Neale Cooper. Does he realise, in using the tactics of Eric Black and Peter Weir and being slightly more aggressive, that he should actually be retrenching rather than attacking? Done it!

Michael Gove: Like me, Mr. O’Hara, you will be delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman has managed to write himself into the history books by managing to mention in the course of one day’s debate on the Greater London Authority Bill all 12 members of that winning team. For the consideration of the Committee, I have produced a research paper on what happened to every member of the team. I shall not go into those matters now, but I would be happy to share it with hon. Members afterwards.
I want to raise two points briefly. The first is the Maginot line argument, and the second is the “Minister falling at the first hurdle” argument. In the order that has been laid for our consideration as part of the clauses, the Government have gone into some detail as to what might be termed a strategic application. Indeed, several of the categories mentioned would seem to anyone to qualify as strategic: aircraft runways, heliports, railway or tram stations crossing over or under the River Thames. All of us would acknowledge that those were strategic. It therefore seems as though a defence has been created in the order against the arbitrary exercise of mayoral powers—that we have an effective defensive line, as it were.
The problem, as we all know, is that one can always move around defensive lines. The Maginot line can be outflanked. The Ardennes in this Bill, as it were—the area that is thickly wooded but can be penetrated by a determined attacker—is in article 8 of the order, which states that
“the Mayor may ... if he considers that any of the issues raised by the development”
would have
“a significant impact on the implementation of the spatial development strategy”,
 determine that planning application. The Mayor can say, “Well, it may not meet any of the criteria”—so carefully laid down by the Government in their order—“but I believe that it will have a significant impact.”
As the Minister has conceded, “a significant impact” is a lesser threshold than going to the heart of the London plan or the spatial development strategy, which is the test that she introduced on Second Reading. Despite the fact that she insists that she does not always agree with the Mayor, the Mayor’s desire to have more planning powers has been acceded to by the fact that we already have a weaker order than we were promised on Second Reading.
 What does that mean in practical terms? I mentioned this morning a development in Commerce road in Hounslow that the Mayor took a view on—a negative view, as it happens. That development could have been decided in one of two ways, depending on the interpretation of the London plan. The Mayor said that the development deserved to go ahead because it fitted with the London plan’s requirement for more affordable housing. Many of us might choose to agree with him. However, in supporting that planning proposal, he undermined another part of the London plan, which is the requirement for strategic employment land to be made available in that part of London. There were two irreconcilable aspects of the London plan.
There will be many planning applications and many areas of potential development where an irreconcilable balance between aspects of the London plan may arise, and the Mayor will be able to decide which aspect he considers likely to have a significant impact on the London plan. The licence for him to intervene will be considerably greater than a casual reading of the order would lead us to believe. In that respect, we simply cannot support a transfer to the Mayor of powers that would give him the opportunity to interfere in a significantly greater number of planning applications than that on which he has already chosen to express an opinion. We rehearsed at length this morning the reason why the Mayor might wish to interfere in planning applications.
Having dealt with the Maginot line, I want briefly to discuss falling at the first hurdle. These comments relate to the Minister’s admission during her remarks on the Olympics and tall buildings, when she got herself into an uncharacteristic fankle. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, “fankle” is an old Scots word that manages to combine both tangle and twist, but with a particularly parochially appropriate and alliterative power.
 The Minister got herself in a tangle and a twist, much as I almost did in that etymological diversion, on the question of the Olympics and tall buildings. She said that the Olympics—and, for that matter, the Thames Gateway development, but particularly the Olympics—were taken out of the order because the Mayor has a view on them; he is a champion of the Olympics and we cannot have him interfering there. But we can have him interfering in all sorts of other areas where he has a predetermined view. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either the Olympics can be included because we can trust the Mayor to deal with them—the Minister mentioned common law and other guarantees—or it cannot be included if we cannot trust him. Indeed, this Mayor or a future Mayor cannot be trusted if they have expressed an opinion.

Yvette Cooper: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Olympics and the ODA refer to specific sites, whereas policies on tall buildings, zero-carbon buildings and affordable housing apply across London as a whole? Those policies affect the city as a whole, as opposed to something that affects individual sites, which was the issue that he raised at the beginning, and the provenance of the ODA.

Michael Gove: I fear that the Minister probably is not as familiar with the order as she should be, because if she were aware of precisely how tall buildings are dealt with in it and in the pre-existing one, she would recognise that tall building legislation does apply to specific sites: those that are adjacent to the Thames and those that are in the City of London. The order is geographically specific, and it includes other details.
I take the Minister’s point, but her Department has a generalised policy on, for example, zero-carbon development, and the Secretary of State exercises his or her power on specific planning applications within that framework. The Minister introduced the Olympic exception, as it will become known hereafter, so she is the person who has erected the hurdle, and she is the person who will fall at it. We cannot allow the clauses to become part of the Bill when they have such a weakly defined and contradictory order as their basis, and that is why I reluctantly confess that we shall vote against them.

Tom Brake: The Minister made a valiant but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to convince Liberal Democrat Members that there was no possibility of mission creep in respect of the Mayor’s planning powers. His track record so far is one of intervention in matters that are of a non-strategic nature, and she is giving him scope to intervene to a greater extent in such matters. Therefore I shall certainly join the official Opposition in voting against the clauses.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Mayor to determine certain applications for planning permission

Michael Gove: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 36, line 20, at end insert—
‘ “2D Application to be heard in public
Mayoral decisions on planning applications shall be made in public after public oral representations by interested parties.”.’.
 The amendment relates heavily to the debate that we have just had, and to an extent some of the arguments were pre-empted by the Minister in her summing-up. I do not think that there is any shame in the Minister having done so, because the amendment is so intimately involved with that debate and discussion. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the exercise of the Mayor’s planning powers is put on a statutory footing when it comes to the question of public consultation. In the previous debate we rehearsed the way in which the Mayor—apart from the Secretary of State, who exercises a unique power—is a one-man or one-woman planning authority.
The case for public involvement in the process of the Mayor deliberating on planning applications has already been conceded in principle in the order that relates to the Mayor’s exercise of positive planning powers. The Minister has acknowledged that it would be perfectly possible for the Mayor, if he wished, to shape a public hearing after he had received an application from the individual or from the developer who was pushing a planning application or from the borough that was or had been responsible for deciding it. In certain circumstances, we already have a procedure to allow the Mayor to give his deliberations in public and to receive evidence in public. Unfortunately, the provision in the order allows the Mayor to decide the scope of the tribunal or hearing. It seems to us that our amendment would put on a statutory footing the requirement that we would set out not for the Mayor, but for all time through this House for the way that such a public hearing should take place.
If the Government believe that it is important on such a matter—they clearly do, given the detail into which they have gone in the order—to lay down centrally what a strategic planning application might be, for example, how much more important is it for Government to lay down how the Mayor should exercise those powers in public rather than leaving it for this Mayor or a future Mayor to decide on a matter of whim how he might seek to do so? When the Minister was discussing the exercise of those powers in public, she made it seem almost as though we were being invited to vote for some sort of return to ancient Greece, where the citizens of London would gaze on the Mayor—as though, like Socrates, he would sit there with one fist underneath his chin as he deliberated on the planning applications—waiting, waiting, waiting until he delivered himself of his view. The truth, however, is that what we would require and what the amendment seeks to promote is a means whereby the Mayor would have to justify in public the decision to which he came, to publish in public the papers that govern that decision, to take evidence in public from those who had a material interest and to ensure a greater degree of transparency.
I should say that that initiative, far from being the quixotic view of those on the Conservative Benches, is soundly based on the Greater London assembly’s report on planning, “Behind Closed Doors”, which I earlier commended to the Committee. If the Minister feels that for any reason the amendment is not drafted precisely as she would like, I will make her an offer. If she wishes to come up with an appropriate new clause either in the course of this Committee or on Report with a means of putting on a statutory footing how the Mayor should decide those applications, we are more than willing to meet her to discuss that. It seems that to leave the decision entirely to the Mayor in the order, which is pendant on our discussions, is to leave in the hands of a future incumbent of that office a power that we in this House should delineate today.

Tom Brake: This morning we had a full discussion of the risks associated with a one-man planning authority. In an intervention, I invited the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to speculate on the scenario of a Mayor with a financial interest in a particular application. I did not want to give the Committee the impression that I was impugning the present Mayor’s probity, but I think that we need to prepare for all eventualities. It is our business to tackle hypothetical situations, hence the need for the amendment to ensure that the process is totally transparent.
I have served as a local councillor on two councils. The first was Labour Hackney in the late ’80s, where little was done to promote affordable housing and council keys were sold to people who were not legitimate tenants. More recently, I served in the London borough of Sutton. I know the pressures that local councillors face when they are asked to consider planning matters in which they are discouraged from entering into any discussion with developers. Councils must have a full and open consultation process and go overboard in providing their residents with information about planning matters. If they do not, God forbid, the residents’ response will be very strong indeed. The amendment would make the process public by ensuring that everything is fully documented, all the documents in which decisions are based are in the public domain and everything is open to scrutiny.

Greg Hands: Is it not also the case that the current Mayor seems to support the amendment? His submission to us said:
“The Mayor is also content for the meeting at which he hears representations to be open to the public and broadcast over the internet. He is also happy to take his decisions on any applications he has taken over in public.”

Tom Brake: I am grateful for that intervention. If the Government do not go down the road that we are proposing in the amendment, the Mayor has committed himself on record to certain things to which we will be able to hold him.

Stephen Pound: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this intervention will have nothing whatever to do with the working man’s ballet. He is making a powerful case in support of the official Opposition’s amendment. The last two words of the amendment are “interested parties”. Bearing in mind that there is not a person on this planet who is not interested in London, has he given any thought to the possible consequences of any person describing themselves as an interested party making oral representations? Surely that is a recipe for ultimate gridlock.

Tom Brake: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who speaks for the official Opposition, has addressed that point. He invited the Minister for Housing and Planning, if she is not satisfied with the wording of the amendment, to present an alternative. A precedent was set by the Minister for London when he agreed to draft an alternative to amendment No. 38. We hold out the hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning and Labour Members will see the amendment as straightforward and entirely in keeping with our debate, and we think that they can support it. It is about transparency. We do not have a proprietary hold on the amendment. If the Government want to come forward with their alternative, I am sure that it would receive support from these Benches.

Yvette Cooper: I have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. We certainly attempted in the order to introduce transparency into the procedures that the Mayor must follow. As a minimum, he must hear oral representations from the applicant and the local authority, if it so wishes, before making a decision. That goes further than requirements placed on other local planning authorities. There is no requirement for local planning authorities to allow oral representations to be made to planning committees.
There are also procedures for the Mayor to publish a statement setting out lists of other persons who will hear oral representations for other procedures to be followed and so on. As I said earlier, I have sympathy with the idea that, in fact, those oral representations should take place in public. We should take that into account in the order because it is an important part of the process of delivering transparency. However, I reiterate the fact that there are serious practical worries about trying to replicate the role of Socrates, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested. If the current Mayor chooses to emulate Socrates, that is obviously a matter for him. However, I do not think that it is a sensible issue to be dealt with under primary legislation.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit with which she has so far approached the principle of openness, with which we all agree. Does she accept that, because of the importance to those involved of planning and the issues that we have discussed, the Government should concede as a matter of principle the commitment to having the planning hearings take place in public. Whatever wording is used, that principle is so important that it should be outlined in the Bill rather than be dependent on the concession of a Mayor or made under regulations? That is what we are driving at.

Yvette Cooper: Again, I say that the matter is about process. It is better dealt with under secondary legislation than under primary legislation. I am happy to agree to the principle about hearing representations in public rather than in private, but such a process is most sensibly dealt with as part of the order under secondary legislation rather than by primary legislation. That approach reflects the practical approach that we take to other aspects of planning deliberations. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I do understand the intention behind it and have sought to set out the Government’s response.

Michael Gove: I am disappointed that the Government have not responded in the way that we would wish, although I acknowledge the gracious way in which the Minister has dealt with the spirit of the amendment. There is a disagreement between us about how precisely to achieve the goal that I think we both share, although we have greater ardour in wishing to see the Mayor held to account publicly. We shall therefore press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Planning obligations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Gove: For the illumination of the Committee, because we lost the vote on that clause and because the other clauses are more or less consequent on clause 31 we are now reluctantly content to allow the other clauses the stand part of the Bill. As we lost the vote on clause 31, we will not contest the other clauses, so with the Minister’s permission and your permission, Mr. O’Hara, we can move on to the next debate. The final point that I wish to stress is that we and, I suspect, the Liberal Democrats may wish to table further amendments on Report that deal specifically with planning proposals. However, at this stage we acknowledge that the vote has been won by the Government.

Edward O'Hara: That is clearly understood and very helpful, thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Duties of waste collection authorities etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause 37 stand part.
Amendment No. 62, in clause 39, page 41, line 45, at end insert—
‘(iv) the London Waste Authority,’.
 Amendment No. 64, in schedule 2, page 53, line 36, at end insert—
‘Section 356(3).’.
New clause 35—London Waste Authority
‘(1) After section 359 of the GLA Act 1999 (confidential information about waste contracts) insert—
“359A London Waste Authority
(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the London Waste Authority.
(2) The London Waste Authority shall have the functions conferred or imposed on it by this Act, or made exercisable by it under this Act, and any reference in this Act to the functions of the London Waste Authority includes a reference to any functions made exercisable by it under this Act.
(3) The London Waste Authority shall have—
(a) the functions of the waste disposal authority for Greater London for the purposes of Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43), and
(b) any other such functions as are conferred or imposed on it by this Act.
(4) The London Waste Authority shall exercise its functions—
(a) in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued to it by the Mayor under section 359B(1),
(b) for the purpose of facilitating the discharge by the Greater London Authority of the duties under sections 353 to 361E of the GLA Act 1999, and
(c) for the purpose of securing or facilitating the implementation of the municipal waste management strategy.
(5) Schedule 29A shall have effect with respect to the London Waste Authority.
(6) The control of places provided for the deposit of household waste in Greater London under section 1(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3) and 51(1)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) shall transfer to the London Waste Authority.
(7) The authorities established by Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985/1884) are dissolved, whereupon any remaining property, rights or liabilities are transferred to the London Waste Authority.
359B Directions etc by the Mayor
(1) The Mayor may issue to the London Waste Authority—
(a) guidance as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions,
 (b) general directions as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions, or
(c) specific directions as to the exercise of its functions.
(2) Directions issued by the Mayor under subsection (1)(c) may include a direction not to exercise a power specified in the direction.
(3) The guidance or directions which may be issued by the Mayor under subsection (1) may include in particular guidance or directions as to the manner in which the London Waste Authority—
(a) is to perform any of its duties, or
(b) is to conduct any legal proceedings.
(4) Any guidance or directions issued under subsection (1) must be issued in writing and notified to such officer of the London Waste Authority as it may from time to time nominate to the Mayor for the purpose.”.
(2) After Schedule 29 of the GLA Act 1999 insert Schedule 29A set out in Schedule [London Waste Authority] to this Act.
(3) Schedule [London Waste Authority - consequential amendments] shall have effect.’.
New clause 36—Powers and duties of the London Waste Authority
‘(1) After section 359B of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London Waste Authority] (1) of this Act) insert—
“359C Sustainable disposal of waste
When exercising its functions under section 51(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (functions of waste disposal authorities), the London Waste Authority shall—
(a) do so in a manner calculated to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom,
(b) take into account any policies announced by Her Majesty’s Government with respect to climate change or the consequences of climate change, and
(c) comply with any guidance or directions issued to the London Waste Authority by the Secretary of State or the Mayor with respect to the means by which, or manner in which, the London Waste Authority is to perform the duties imposed on it by paragraph (a) or (b) above.
359D Publicity and advice
(1) The London Waste Authority may promote or undertake publicity in any form.
(2) The London Waste Authority shall promote—
(a) the reduction and reuse of waste in Greater London, and
(b) the sustainable management of waste in Greater London.
(3) The London Waste Authority may advise companies operating in Greater London on the items referred to in subsection (2).
359E Waste management
The London Waste Authority may apply for a waste management licence under section 36 (grant of licences) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) for the purposes of treating, keeping or disposing of waste that is delivered to it by a person other than a waste collection authority.
359F Power of the London Waste Authority to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament
(1) The London Waste Authority—
(a) may promote a local Bill in Parliament; and
(b) may oppose any local Bill in Parliament.
 (2) Subsection (1)(a) applies only if the Greater London Authority—
(a) gives its written consent to the Bill; and
(b) confirms that consent in writing as soon as practicable after the expiration of 14 days after Bill has been deposited in Parliament.
(3) If the Greater London Authority does not confirm the consent as required by subsection (2)(b), it shall give notice of that fact to the London Waste Authority, which shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the Bill.
(4) If the Authority, in giving notice under subsection (3), states that it confirms its consent to the Bill if provisions specified in the notice are omitted or are amended as so specified, the London Waste Authority may, instead of withdrawing the Bill pursuant to subsection (3), take all necessary steps for the omission or, as the case may be, the amendment of the provisions in question in accordance with the notice.
(5) Without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4), the functions conferred on the London Waste Authority by subsection (1)(a) are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule 29B.
(6) Subsection (1)(b) applies only if the Greater London Authority gives its written consent to the London Waste Authority to oppose the Bill.
(7) If—
(a) the London Waste Authority deposits a petition against a Bill in Parliament, but
(b) the consent required by subsection (6) has not been given before the end of the period of 30 days following the day on which the petition is deposited,
the London Waste Authority shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the petition.
(8) The functions conferred or imposed on the Greater London Authority by this section shall be functions of the Greater London Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Greater London Authority.
(9) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Greater London Authority by subsections (2)(a) or (b), (4) or (6), the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.
359G Joint exercise of functions
(1) The London Waste Authority may discharge any of its functions jointly with one or more local authorities and, where arrangements are in force for them to do so,—
(a) they may also arrange for the discharge of those functions by a joint committee of theirs or by an officer of one of them and section 101(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) shall apply in relation to those functions as it applies in relation to the functions of the individual authorities; and
(b) any enactment relating to those functions or the authorities by whom or the areas in respect of which they are to be discharged shall have effect subject to all necessary modifications in its application in relation to those functions and the authorities by whom and the areas in respect of which (whether in pursuance of the arrangements or otherwise) they are to be discharged.
(2) Arrangements made under subsection (1) by the London Waste Authority and one or more local authorities with respect to the discharge of any of their functions shall cease to have effect with respect to that function if, or to the extent that, the function becomes the responsibility of an executive of any of the local authorities.
(3) Subsection (2) does not affect arrangements made by virtue of section 20 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (joint exercise of functions).”.
(2) In section 360(1) of the GLA Act 1999 for “359”substitute “359G”.
 (3) In section 51(4A) of the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 (c. 43) after “but” insert “in the case of a waste disposal authority that is not the London Waste Authority”.
(4) After section 51(1) of the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 (c. 43) insert—
“(1A) It shall be the duty of the London Waste Authority to arrange for places to be provided at which persons resident in its area may deposit their household waste to be reused or recycled and to make arrangements for the reuse and recycling of such waste.”.
(5) Section 48(2) (duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 shall not apply to waste collection authorities in Greater London.
(6) After Schedule 29A of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London Waste Authority] (2) of this Act) insert Schedule 29B set out in Schedule [Promotion of Bills in Parliament by the London Waste Authority] to this Act.’.
New clause 37—Mayor to prepare minerals and waste development scheme
‘(1) PCPA 2004 shall be amended as follows—
(a) in section 16(1) after “district council” insert “and the Mayor of London”; and
(b) in section 16(3)(a) after “county council” insert “and the Mayor of London, as appropriate”.
(2) The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/2204) shall be amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) after “county council” insert “and the Mayor of London”;
(b) in regulation 12(3) after “scheme” insert “prepared by a county council”; and
(c) after regulation 12(3) insert—
“(4) Where paragraph (1) or (2) applies to a minerals and waste development scheme prepared by the Mayor of London, within 2 weeks he must send a copy of—
(a) the scheme, or
(b) the scheme incorporating the revision,
to teach local planning authority in Greater London.”.’.
 New clause 38—Municipal waste management strategy
‘(1) The GLA Act 1999 shall be amended as follows—
(a) omit “municipal” in—
(i) section 353(2)(b) (the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy), and
(ii) section 353(5)(e); and
(b) in section 355 (duties of waste collection authorities etc.) for “Part II” substitute “Part 2 or section 89 of Part 4”.
(2) After section 357(4) of the GLA Act 1999 insert—
“(4A) Where the Mayor has been notified by a waste authority under subsection (1), (2) or (4) he shall consult the London Waste Authority.”.’.
New clause 39—London waste charging scheme
‘After section 359G of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [Powers and duties of the London Waste Authority] (1) of this Act) insert—
“359H London waste charging scheme
(1) The Mayor may by order make a scheme to charge waste collection authorities in London for the delivery of waste to the London Waste Authority, to be known as the London waste charging scheme.
(2) An order under this section may—
(a) specify charges for the delivery to the London Waste Authority by a waste collection authority of waste;
(b) impose a charge per tonne of delivered waste;
(c) impose separate charges for different types of waste based on the technology or processes used to manage or dispose of such waste;
(d) make different provisions for different cases, including different provisions in relation to different waste collection authorities, circumstances or localities;
(e) provide for the times at which, and the manner in which, the charges prescribed by the scheme are to be paid;
(f) revoke or amend any previous charging scheme; or
(g) contain supplemental, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions for the purposes of the scheme.
(3) The power of the Mayor to make an order under this section includes a power exercisable by order to revoke, amend or re-enact any such order.
(4) An order made by the Mayor under this section shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by an order made by the Secretary of State.”.’.
New clause 40—Transfer schemes
‘After section 359H of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London waste charging scheme] of this Act) insert—
“359I Transfer schemes
(1) The power conferred by subsection (2) is exercisable in connection with the establishment of the London Waste Authority.
(2) The London Waste Authority may make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities from any body falling within subsection (3) to any other such body as specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme.
(3) Those bodies are—
(a) the London Waste Authority,
(b) any subsidiary of the London Waste Authority;
(c) any local authority in Greater London; and
(d) an authority established by Part 2, 3, 4 or 5 of Schedule 1 to the Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985/1884).
(4) On a date specified by a scheme as the date on which the scheme is to have effect, the designated property, rights or liabilities are transferred and vest in accordance with the scheme.
(5) A scheme under this section shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by the Mayor.
(6) Where a scheme under this section is submitted to the Mayor for his approval, he may, after consultation with the London Waste Authority, modify the scheme before approving it.
(7) The transfers which may be made by virtue of a scheme under this section include transfers taking effect before, onor after the dissolution of the joint waste authorities under section 359A(7).
(8) Schedule 12 (which makes further provision in relation to schemes under this section) shall have effect.”.’.
New clause 42—Litter
‘(1) Section 360 of the GLA Act 1999 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) In the definition of “waste contract” in subsection (2) for “Part 2 of that Act (waste on land)” substitute “Part 2 (waste on land) or section 89 of Part 4 (Litter etc.) of that Act”.’.
New schedule 1—
‘London Waste Authority
This is the Schedule that is to be inserted as Schedule 29A to the GLA Act 1999—

“Schedule 29A

London Waste Authority

Part 1

Establishment

None

1 (1) The London Waste Authority shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
(2) The members and staff of the London Waste Authority shall not be regarded as civil servants and the property of the London Waste Authority shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(3) It shall be within the capacity of the London Waste Authority to do such things and enter into such transactions as are calculated to facilitate, or are conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of its functions.

None

2 (1) The London Waste Authority shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the Mayor of whom no fewer than six have been nominated by, and (at the time of their appointment) are elected members of—
(a) a London borough council, or
(b) the Common Council of the City of London.
(2) The Mayor may determine the process of nominating and appointing members under sub-paragraph (1).
(3) The Mayor cannot appoint himself as a member of the London Waste Authority.
(4) In appointing a person under sub-paragraph (1), the Mayor shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the members of the London Waste Authority between them have experience in—
(a) running a business,
(b) delivering large capital programmes,
(c) regeneration,
(d) waste management, and
(e) recycling.
(5) The terms and conditions of appointment of a member of the London Waste Authority (including conditions as to remuneration) shall be such as the Mayor may determine.
(6) The Mayor may, by notice to a member of the London Waste Authority, remove that member from office.

None

3 The Mayor shall designate—
(a) one of the members of the London Waste Authority to be chairman of the London Waste Authority, and
(b) another of the members to be deputy chairman of the London Waste Authority.

None

4 (1) The London Waste Authority may appoint such staff as it considers necessary for assisting in the exercise of any of its functions.
(2) The staff of the London Waste Authority shall be appointed on such terms and conditions (including conditions as to remuneration) as the London Waste Authority shall determine

None

5 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the London Waste Authority may regulate its own procedures and that of the committees of the London Waste Authority and sub-committees of such committees (and in particular may specify a quorum for meetings).
(2) The validity of any proceedings of the London Waste Authority shall not be affected—
(a) by any vacancy among the members or in the office of chairman or deputy chairman, or
(b) by any defect in the appointment of any person as a member, or as chairman or deputy chairman, of the London Waste Authority.

None

6 (1) A committee of the London Waste Authority or a sub-committee of such a committee may include persons who are not members of the London Waste Authority.
(2) A person who is a member of a committee of the London Waste Authority or a sub-committee of such a committee but is not a member of the London Waste Authority shall be a non-voting member of the committee or sub-committee.

None

7 (1) The London Waste Authority may form, promote and assist, or join with any other person in forming, promoting and assisting, a company for the purpose of—
(a) carrying on any activities which the London Waste Authority has power to carry on, or
(b) carrying on such activities together with activities which the London Waste Authority does not have power to carry on.
(2) The London Waste Authority may enter into and carry out agreements with any person for the carrying on by that person, whether as agent for the London Waste Authority or otherwise, of any activities which the London Waste Authority has power to carry on (and, in particular, with respect to the disposal of waste).
(3) The London Waste Authority may also enter into and carry out an agreement with any person for the carrying on by that person (“the contractor”) of any activities which the London Waste Authority does not have the power to carry on if the agreement includes provision for one or more of the following, namely—
(a) the carrying on by the contractor of such activities as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (2);
(b) the provision by the contractor to the London Waste Authority of services ancillary to the disposal of waste; and
(c) the use by the contractor of land or other property owned by the London Waste Authority, or transferred to the contractor by the London Waste Authority, for the purposes of the agreement.
(4) Where an agreement has been entered into under sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the powers conferred on the London Waste Authority by that subsection include power to enter into and carry out other agreements with other persons for the purpose of—
(a) fulfilling any condition which must be fulfilled before the agreement can have effect; or
(b) satisfying any requirement imposed by or under the agreement.
(5) Where—
(a) a company has been formed in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) (whether by the London Waste Authority alone or by the London Waste Authority jointly with some other person); or
(b) the London Waste Authority has entered into an agreement with any person in exercise of its powers under sub-paragraph (2) or (3),
the London Waste Authority may enter into arrangements with that company or person for the transfer from the London Waste Authority to that company or person, in such manner and on such terms (including payments by any of the parties to the arrangements to any of the other parties) as may be provided for by the arrangements, of any property, rights or liabilities of the London Waste Authority relevant to the purpose for which the company was formed or (as the case may be) to the performance by that person of his obligations under the agreement.
(6) The London Waste Authority shall have power to enter into and carry out agreements with—
(a) any of its subsidiaries; or
(b) any person with whom it has entered into an agreement by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) or (3),
providing for the London Waste Authority to give assistance to the other party to the agreement by making available to that party any services, amenities or facilities provided by, or any works or land or other property belonging to, the London Waste Authority, on such terms (including the reciprocal provision by that other party for similar assistance for the London Waste Authority) as may be agreed between them.
(7) The power of the London Waste Authority under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) to enter into an agreement as there mentioned is exercisable notwithstanding that the agreement involves the delegation of the functions of the London Waste Authority under any enactment relating to any part of its undertaking.

None

8 (1) Subject to any express provision contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act, the London Waste Authority may arrange for any of its functions to be discharged on its behalf by—
(a) any committee of the London Waste Authority,
(b) any sub-committee of such a committee,
(c) any wholly owned subsidiary (within the meaning of section 736(2) of the Companies Act 1985) of the London Waste Authority,
(d) any member of officer of the London Waste Authority, or
(e) any body of members or officers, or members and officers, of the London Waste Authority.
(2) Where the London Waste Authority makes arrangements under this paragraph for the discharge of any function, the person or body by whom the function is to be discharged shall exercise the function subject to any conditions imposed by the London Waste Authority.
(3) Arrangements made by the London Waste Authority for the discharge of functions under this paragraph shall not prevent the London Waste Authority from exercising those functions.

None

9 (1) Where the London Waste Authority makes arrangements for the discharge of any function by a committee under paragraph 7, the committee may (subject to any conditions imposed by the London Waste Authority) arrange for the discharge of the function on its behalf by—
(a) any sub committee of the committee,
(b) any member or officer of the London Waste Authority, or
(c) any body of members or officers, or members and officers, of the London Waste Authority.
(2) Where—
(a) the London Waste Authority makes arrangements for the discharge of any function by a sub-committee under paragraph 7, or
(b) a committee of the London Waste Authority makes arrangements for the discharge of any function by a sub-committee under sub-paragraph (1),
the sub-committee may (subject to any conditions imposed by the London Waste Authority or the committee) arrange for the discharge of the function on its behalf by any member or officer of the London Waste Authority, or any body of members or officers, or members and officers, of the London Waste Authority.
(3) Where a committee or sub-committee makes arrangements under this paragraph for the discharge of any function, the person or body by whom the function is to be discharged shall exercise the function subject to any conditions imposed by the committee or sub-committee.
 (4) Arrangements made by a committee or sub-committee for the discharge of functions under this paragraph shall not prevent the committee or sub-committee from exercising those functions.

None

10 (1) The London Waste Authority shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the following provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (arrangements for the discharge of functions of a local authority by joint committees with other local authorities)—
(a) section 101(5),
(b) section 102, apart from subsection (1)(a) and subsection (4), to the extent that it would permit the London Waste Authority to appoint a committee that is not a joint committee, and
(c) section 103.
(2) Nothing in section 13 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) (voting rights of members of certain committees: England and Wales) shall require a person to be treated as a non-voting member of a committee appointed by the London Waste Authority and one or more other local authorities by virtue of section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 if that person—
(a) is appointed to the committee by the London Waste Authority, and
(b) is not a member of the London Waste Authority.

None

11 (1) Minutes shall be kept of proceedings of the London Waste Authority, of its committees and sub-committees of such committees.
(2) Minutes of any proceedings shall be evidence of those proceedings if they are signed by a person purporting to have acted as chairman of the proceedings to which the minutes relate or of any subsequent proceedings in the course of which the minutes were approved as a correct record.
(3) Where minutes of any such proceedings have been signed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), those proceedings shall, unless the contrary is shown, be deemed to have been validly convened and constituted.

None

12 (1) The application of the seal of the London Waste Authority shall be authenticated by the signature of any member, officer or member of staff of the London Waste Authority who has been authorised for the purpose, whether generally or specially, by the London Waste Authority.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) the reference to the signature of a person includes a reference to a facsimile of a signature by whatever process reproduced; and, in paragraph 13, the word “signed” shall be construed accordingly.

None

13 (1) Any document which the London Waste Authority is authorised or required by or under any enactment to serve, make or issue may be signed on behalf of the London Waste Authority by any member, officer or member of staff of the London Waste Authority who has been authorised for the purpose, whether generally or specially, by the London Waste Authority.
(2) Every document purporting to be an instrument made or issued by or on behalf of the London Waste Authority and to be duly executed under the seal of the London Waste Authority, or to be signed or executed by a person authorised by the London Waste Authority for the purpose, shall be received in evidence and be treated, without further proof, as being made or so issued unless the contrary is shown.
(3) Any notice which is required or authorised, by or under any provision of any other Act, to be given, served or issued by, to or on the London Waste Authority shall be in writing.

None

14 (1) If a member of the London Waste Authority has any interest, whether direct or indirect, and whether pecuniary or not, in any matter that is brought up for consideration at a meeting of the London Waste Authority he shall disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting; and, where such a disclosure is made—
(a) the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting; and
(b) the member shall not take any part in any deliberation or decision of the London Waste Authority, or any of its committees or sub-committees, with respect to that matter.
(2) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of the London Waste Authority in order to make a disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph if he takes reasonable steps to ensure that the disclosure is made by a notice which is read and considered at the meeting.
(3) The Mayor may, subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate, remove any disability imposed by virtue of this paragraph in any case where the number of members of the London Waste Authority disabled by virtue of this paragraph at any one time would be so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of business.
(4) The power of the Mayor under sub-paragraph (3) includes power to remove, either indefinitely or for any period, a disability which would otherwise attach to any member, or members of any description, by reason of such interests, and in respect of such matters, as may be specified or described by the Mayor.
(5) Where the Mayor exercises the power under sub-paragraph (3) to remove a disability—
(a) he shall notify the London Waste Authority that he has done so, and of this reasons for doing so, and
(b) the removal of the disability and the Mayor’s reasons shall be recorded in the minutes of the London Waste Authority.
(6) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of sub-paragraph (1), he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale unless he proves that he did not know that the contract, proposed contract or other matter in which he had the interest was the subject of consideration at the Meeting.
(7) A prosecution for an offence under this paragraph shall not be instituted except by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(8) The London Waste Authority may provide for the exclusion of a member from a meeting of the London Waste Authority while any contract, proposed contract or other matter in which he has such an interest as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is under consideration.
(9) Section 95 of the Local Government Act 1972 (pecuniary interests for the purposes of section 94) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that section.
(10) Section 96 of that Act (general notices and recording of disclosures for the purposes of section 94) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph, but taking—
(a) any reference to a proper officer of the authority as a reference to an officer appointed by the London Waste Authority for the purpose;
(b) any reference to a member of the authority as a reference to a member of the London Waste Authority;
(c) any reference to premises owned by the authority as a reference to premises owned by the London Waste Authority; and
(d) any reference to section 94 of that Act as a reference to this paragraph.
(11) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 97 of that Act (disregard of certain interests for the purposes of section 94) shall apply in relation to this paragraph as they apply in relation to section 94 of that Act, but as if—
(a) the members of the London Waste Authority were members of a local authority; and
(b) in subsection (5), for “a pecuniary interest” there were substituted “an interest (whether pecuniary or not)”.
(12) Section 19 of the Local Government and HousingAct 1989 (members’ interests) shall apply as if—
(a) the London Waste Authority were a local authority;
(b) the members of the London Waste Authority were the members of that local authority;
(c) an officer appointed by the London Waste Authority for the purpose were the proper officer of that local authority;
(d) any reference to a pecuniary interest were a reference to an interest, whether pecuniary or not; and
(e) any reference to section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972 were a reference to this paragraph.
15 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 16, the Secretary of State may authorise the London Waste Authority to purchase compulsorily any land which is required by the London Waste Authority or a subsidiary of the London Waste Authority for the purposes of the discharge of any function.
(2) The Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67) shall apply to any compulsory purchase by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).
(3) The London Waste Authority shall not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) submit to the Secretary of State a compulsory purchase order authorising the acquisition of any land in accordance with section 2(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 unless the Mayor has given his consent.
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the power of purchasing land compulsorily in this paragraph includes power to acquire an easement or other right over land by the creation of a new right.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply to an easement or other right over land which forms part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment within the meaning of section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
16 The London Waste Authority does not have power to acquire land (or any interest in land) for purposes which are not related to any of the activities, other than the development of land, of the London Waste Authority or any subsidiary of the London Waste Authority.”.’.
New schedule 2—

‘London Waste Authority—consequential amendments

None

1 (1) The GLA Act 1999 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For section 353(5)(b) (the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy) substitute “(b) the London Waste Authority”.
(3) In section 353(5)(d) for “waste disposal authorities in Greater London” substitute “the London Waste Authority”.
(4) In section 355 (duties of waste collection authorities etc.) for “each of the waste disposal authorities in Greater London” substitute “the London Waste Authority”.
(5) In section 356(1) (directions by the Mayor) for “a waste disposal authority in Greater London” substitute “the London Waste Authority”.
(6) In section 360(1) for “359” substitute “359B”.
(7) In section 360(2) (interpretation of sections 353 to 359)—
(a) in the definition of “municipal waste” for paragraph (b) substitute “the London Waste Authority”;
(b) in the definition of “waste authority” for paragraph (b) substitute “the London Waste Authority”; and
(c) in the definition of “waste disposal authority in Greater London” omit “in Greater London”.
 (8) In section 424(1) (interpretation) in the definition of “functional body”, after “(b) the London Development Agency” insert “(ba) the London Waste Authority”.

None

2 (1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For section 30(2)(b) (authorities for the purposes of this part) substitute “in Greater London, the London Waste Authority”.
(3) In section 44A(5)(a) (national waste strategy: England and Wales) after “Agency” insert “and the London Waste Authority,”.

None

3 In article 2 of the Joint Waste Disposal Authorities (Recycling Payments) (Disapplication) (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/651) for “an authority established under regulation 2(1) of the Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 and named in Schedule 1 to that Order” substitute “the London Waste Authority”.

None

4 (1) The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3) shall be modified as follows.
(2) Section 3(6) shall have effect as if—
(a) “whose area is included in the area of a London waste disposal authority” were omitted, and
(b) for “the authority in question” were substituted “the London Waste Authority, the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority or the Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, as the case may be”.
 (3) Section 3(8) shall have effect as if for “a London waste disposal authority” were substituted “the London Waste Authority”.
(4) Section 4(8) shall have effect as if—
(a) for “in the area of a London waste disposal authority, that authority” were substituted “in Greater London, the London Waste Authority”, and
(b) section 4(8)(b) were omitted.
(5) Section 5(4) shall have effect as if for “whose area is included in the area of a London waste disposal authority, that authority” were substituted “, the London Waste Authority”.
(6) Section 5(5)(a) shall have effect as if—
(a) “whose area is included in the area of a London waste disposal authority” were omitted, and
(b) for “the authority in question” were substituted “the London Waste Authority, the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority or the Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, as the case may be”.’.
New schedule 3—

‘Promotions of Bills in Parliament by the London Waste Authority
This is the Schedule that is to be inserted as Schedule 29B to the GLA Act 1999—

“Schedule 29B

Promotions of Bills in Parliament by The London Waste Authority

None

5 No Bill may be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section 359F(1)(a) until the requirements of paragraph 2 have been complied with.

None

6 (1) The London Waste Authority shall—
(a) prepare a draft of the proposed Bill (“the draft Bill”);
(b) send copies of the draft Bill to the bodies and persons specified in sub-paragraph (2); and
(c) consult those bodies and persons about the draft Bill.
(2) Those bodies and persons are—
(a) the Mayor;
(b) the Assembly;
(c) every London borough council; and
(d) the Common Council.
(3) Where the London Waste Authority sends copies of the draft Bill to those bodies and persons pursuant to sub-paragraph (1)(b), it shall also give those bodies and persons notice of the time within which, and the place at which, they may make representations about the draft Bill.

None

7 (1) Throughout the consultation period, the London Waste Authority shall take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity to the draft Bill.
(2) A copy of the draft Bill shall be kept available by the London Waste Authority for inspection by any person on request free of charge—
(a) at the principal offices of the London Waste Authority, and
(b) at such other places as the London Waste Authority considers appropriate
at reasonable hours throughout the consultation period.
(3) A copy of the draft Bill, or of any part of the draft Bill, shall be supplied to any person on request during the consultation period for such reasonable fee as the London Waste Authority may determine.
(4) In this paragraph “the consultation period” means the period which—
(a) begins with the first day after the requirements of paragraph 2(1)(b) have been complied with; and
(b) ends with the time notified pursuant to paragraph 2(3).

None

8 (1) If, after the requirements of paragraph 2 have been complied with, a Bill is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section 359F(1)(a), that Bill must be in the form of the draft Bill, either as originally prepared or as modified to take account of—
(a) representations made pursuant to paragraph 2;
(b) other representations made within the consultation period; or
(c) other material considerations.
(2) In this paragraph “the consultation period” has the same meaning as in paragraph 3.

None

9 (1) If a Bill proposed to be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section 359F(1)(a) contains provisions affecting the exercise of statutory function by a London local authority, the Bill shall not be deposited in Parliament unless—
(a) in a case where the exercise of statutory functions of one London local authority is affected, that authority has given its written consent to the Bill in the form in which it is to be so deposited; or
(b) in a case where the exercise of statutory functions of two or more London local authorities is affected, at least 90 per cent. of all London local authorities have given their written consent to the Bill in that form.
(2) In this paragraph “London local authority” means—
(a) a London borough council; or
(b) the Common Council.

None

10 (1) This paragraph applies where a Bill (“the deposited Bill”) is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section 359F(1)(a).
(2) During the period of 14 days following the day on which the deposited Bill is deposited in Parliament, the London Waste Authority shall take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity to the Bill.
(3) A copy of the deposited Bill shall be kept available by the London Waste Authority for inspection by any person on request free of charge—
(a) at the principal offices of the London Waste Authority, and
(b) at such other places as the London Waste Authority considers appropriate,
at reasonable hours throughout the period the Bill is in Parliament.
(4) A copy of the deposited Bill, or of any part of the deposited Bill, shall be supplied to any person on request during that period for such reasonable fee as the London Waste Authority may determine.”.’.

Michael Gove: For the convenience of the Committee, the most material changes to the Bill are contained in the amendments and the schedules consequent to the amendments that stand in the name of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. As the most radical changes to the Bill are contained in the proposal that stands in her name, any response from ourselves and from the Government should follow on from that Member making her case and I am happy to let her do so if that is convenient to you, Mr. O’Hara.

Karen Buck: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to clauses 35 to 40 and 42 and amendmentsNos. 62 and 64 and the consequent new schedules. I apologise to the Committee in advance for what will be a failure to rise to the giddy heights of the previous debate when every 12 members of the Cup Winners cup team were mentioned. I have managed to include subtly within my speech a reference to every one of Britain’s entries to the Eurovision song contest between 1964 to 1977, with the exception of Lulu’s 1969 entry “Boom Bang A Bang” , which was frankly just too difficult. It is fair to say that I am surprised to be introducing these amendments, because a cursory glance at my website would reveal that waste disposal in London has not featured in my top 500 policy interests to date. None the less, having attended a Mayor’s briefing on this issue, armed with hot pins to retain my sense of purpose, I was completely converted to the case that was put to me. With your forbearance, Mr. O’Hara, I will spend a few minutes outlining the key points.
 The central issue—establishing a single waste disposal authority for London—stems from the recognition that the existing arrangements and changes proposed by the Government are not capable of bringing about the step change in waste management that will be necessary if we are to offer Londoners the most efficient and effective waste management strategy and avoid liability for potentially extensive fines for landfill in future. Such an authority will enable us to drive further improvements on the waste hierarchy, reducing landfill and incineration, particularly without incidental benefit, and increase recycling capacity, helping us make further progress on the climate-change agenda.
 Under the current proposal, the waste disposal arrangements for London remain cumbersome and unco-ordinated with no single body responsible for recycling and disposal operations at city level. The proposals do not alter the fundamental weakness in the system that has left London trailing in this country and internationally and allowed it to slip further down the league table of comparable city regions in recent years. However, all parties fundamentally agree about what we would like to see. We need efficient and effective management of the system and proper value for taxpayers; a dramatic reduction in landfill for environmental purposes and to avoid liability for landfill tax; incineration should be offset by the use of energy used for heat and power; the distance travelled during waste disposal should be subject to the maximum reduction possible; environmentally friendly transport methods should be used; and there should be increases in recycling and value for taxpayers. The Government’s favoured approach does not best place us to realise those objectives. That statement is based on past performance and on objective and independent research on the effectiveness of the strategy to date.
There are three key arguments, among many, which I should like to spend a few moments discussing. First, on the coherence of the existing arrangements, the Government have stated that creating a single waste disposal authority would mean separating functions of waste collection and disposal, which would make it more difficult to manage waste effectively and could cause confusion for residents about who was accountable for their services. That is a bizarre argument, given that 21 of London’s boroughs already have a two-tier waste management system, under which collection and disposal are separated.
The single waste disposal authority that I propose would have local political representation on its board. The proposed structure for the single waste disposal authority means that many of its day-to-day operations would be undertaken sub-regionally. Local residents tend to be aware of their local recycling and waste collection services, but waste disposal remains largely out of sight for the public. A single organisation responsible for waste disposal and accountable to the Mayor of London is likely to have a far higher public profile than existing waste disposal authorities and would be directly accountable to the people of London through the Mayor, rather than through joint waste disposal authorities that collectively process and dispose of between 60 and 70 per cent. of London’s waste. Those are little better than quangos, with no direct accountability to the people whom they serve. Waste management is separated between county councils, and between district councils in the shire counties, yet their recycling performance does not suggest that this makes waste management more difficult. The average household recycling rate in two-tier areas in 2005-06 was 31 per cent., compared with 23 per cent. in unitary areas.
The United Kingdom’s largest waste management company, Biffa Waste Services, in its response to the consultation on the Mayor’s powers, stated:
“We believe that time is rapidly running out to achieve sensible decision frameworks for one of the most significant flows of waste in the UK economy. London could be a benchmark for the entire UK economy by demonstrating boldness in its economic, technological, and socio-political decision making framework. It is unlikely that such vision can be achieved within the current framework compared to the strategic vision offered by the Mayor’s office”.
All of that broadly finds favour with the public,50 per cent. of whom—pollings rated 2:1—favour the strategic approach over the mess that we have now.
I accept that the structure proposed by the Government is, in some ways, a strengthening of the extant position, but it is a diagram—I know that we are not allowed to introduce visual aids, Mr. O’Hara—that Heath Robinson would reject for its unnecessary complexity. I am absolutely confident that anyone looking at that bowl of spaghetti would favour the clarity that a single authority would bring. What matters is not the bureaucratic structure but the extent to which a structure is capable of delivering on the environmental objectives of effective waste disposal.
I think we all agree that at the heart of this is the desire to reduce landfill for economic and, above all, environmental reasons. In support of the current delivery mechanism, the Government say that local authorities are on track towards reducing their use of landfill and therefore are not at risk of incurring the fines that will befall them if they do not meet their objectives. That is prayed in aid as a case for not needing the significant and radical change of having a single waste authority, but I do not accept those arguments.
London has two large-scale waste incineration plants that manage 20 per cent. of London’s waste between them. That is significantly more than in any other region, which has led to there being false confidence in London’s ability to meet landfill targets, particularly after 2010. The real tipping point with landfill targets will come between 2010 and 2013, but many London authorities have no plans or procurements to ensure that there will be an infrastructure in place to cope with that tipping point. The GLA estimates that four fifths of London’s authorities are at high or medium risk of not meeting their landfill obligations. Even the construction of the Belvedere incinerator would not substantially alter that position.
About two thirds of London’s waste is buried in landfill sites, and most of that amount is taken to sites in the surrounding counties. The Mayor has set a target that London should be 80 per cent. self-sufficient in managing its municipal waste by 2020. That level of self-sufficiency is needed to meet landfill directive targets and avoid landfill fines of up to £1.7 billion between now and 2020.
By 2020, London will need four times its existing capacity for recycling and three times its existing capacity for waste treatment. A GLA assessment indicates that four fifths of London waste disposal authorities are at risk of failing to deliver the landfill directive targets. Whilst the Government are concerned in the short term about changing governance arrangements and the risk of failing to deliver on early landfill directive targets, the real challenge is in the medium to long term. Estimated fines for landfill could be £35 million in 2010, rising to £139 million in 2013 and £232 million by 2020.
The Government have completely missed the point by focusing only on short-term landfill directive targets, because the targets will become progressively harder to meet. Waste disposal authorities in England must collectively reduce the biodegradable waste that they send to landfill to 75 per cent. of their 1995 levels by 2010, 50 per cent. by 2013 and 35 per cent. by 2020. It is because the real risk to London, in terms of failing to achieve targets, is in the medium to long term that I believe, as does the Mayor, that it is essential to make the radical changes needed to allow London as a whole to meet those targets by putting in place the support and investment mechanisms required to enable us to avoid those risks.
Both the amount of landfill and the risk of receiving fines could be reduced in several ways. Currently,20 per cent. of London’s waste is incinerated, and that level is set to rise to between 33 per cent. and 38 per cent. depending on whether the Government’s or the GLA’s figures are accepted. That is a substantial proportion of the UK total.
We need to take care that incineration does not drive out the scope both for new technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis, and for recycling. The new technologies always sound to me like particularly unpleasant stomach complaints, but they are at the cutting edge of alternatives to landfill and incineration and produce a number of beneficial side products that, among other things, permit creation of heat and energy and provide scope for hydrogen production to feed London’s bus fleet.
It is absolutely clear that, on the basis of current developments, the scope for investing in new technologies and in plant to boost recycling is at risk of being driven out by the emphasis on incineration. Recycling as it stands is unsatisfactory and London’s performance is poor. Some London boroughs are performing well, but many others are not. Overall, London is the poorest-performing region for its recycling of household and municipal waste, recycling just 21 per cent. of household waste as against the English average of 27 per cent. Just one London borough is in the upper quartile of local authority recycling performance, and 18 London authorities are in the lower quartile.
Some argue that London faces a unique challenge, and that that should be taken into account when considering its recycling. However, although it is true that there are particular challenges to recycling in London, I do not believe that they are insurmountable. The best-performing European cities outperform London significantly. Hamburg recycles 57 per cent., Munich 42 per cent., Milan 39 per cent. and Berlin37 per cent. In north America, San Francisco recycles more than 50 per cent. of household waste and Seattle recycles 58 per cent.
As part of the consultation on the Mayor’s powers, the Government asked waste disposal authorities to forecast recycling rates up to 2020. The answers to that question show a total lack of ambition. Just one authority stated that it planned to meet the London plan’s target of recycling 45 per cent. of municipal waste. Collectively, the recycling rate forecast for 2020 was less than that for Europe’s best performers now, with some authorities aiming no higher than 25 per cent. That approach, coupled with a hunger for incineration, means that unless a different approach is taken now, the waste management system in 2020 will continue to lag 30 years behind.
 A press release from London Councils on Monday stated that London should be compared with urban authorities in England and is therefore doing acceptably well. London Councils have trawled through the available research on recycling, and all that they have managed to show is that half of London councils are recycling less than Barnsley. It is my contention that London should be aiming to be a leading international city on recycling, and should be benchmarking against the best in the world, yet London Councils show the real lack of ambition that is the present position.

Dawn Butler: On that point concerning ambition, does my hon. Friend agree that climate change is paramount to renewable energies and that the Mayor’s idea of renewable fuels fuelling London buses is a way of showing the thinking of the future?

Karen Buck: That is absolutely right. What is particularly powerful in that case is that because the Mayor has strategic responsibility for transport and has planning functions, he can combine the waste management, planning and transport strategies in the interests of a progressive climate change agenda, so as to get the maximum benefit and to cross-reference those policies so that they work together most effectively. Although that is still possible to some modest extent with the very diverse and unco-ordinated structures that we have at the moment, the opportunity that is being presented to us is not being taken as it would be were we to have a single authority and be able to combine the functions as one.
My hon. Friend is right, therefore. What this all comes down to in a sense is two words: climate change. We need, of course, to maintain a strong economic argument, and to focus on value for money for taxpayers at all times. However, if we are to ensure that the city of London is able to make the contribution that it can—through recycling, combined heat and power, making the best use of incineration, developing new technologies and putting them to use in other parts of our service delivery—that clear strategic responsibility needs to be vested in a single place: the position of Mayor of London.
 I have also tabled amendments to ensure that London boroughs undertake street litter functions in general conformity with the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy. Like its performance on recycling, London’s performance on litter is the worst of all English regions. Although waste disposal is most appropriately managed at city level, street cleansing and waste collection is best managed at borough level. However, more needs to be done to ensure that high standards of cleanliness are achieved right across the city.
Given London’s importance as a tourism centre and the 2012 Olympic games, it is right that we should show it to be a clean city. The Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy can contain policies and proposals on litter, but under existing legislation, London boroughs do not have to have regard to it—nor, under the new clauses in the Bill, will they have to be in general conformity with it when undertaking street cleansing. My amendment seeks to address that issue while ensuring that boroughs remain in control of such local services. I propose that boroughs should be in general conformity with the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy when undertaking their functions on litter, and that they submit to the Mayor documentation on any proposed new street cleansing contract to ensure that it is not detrimental to his strategy.
 To sum up, London needs strong, effective leadership on waste management. That requires not only a clear direction, but powers and funding to deliver it. Transport for London has demonstrated the benefits of a single, properly resourced organisation under mayoral leadership. A single waste authority will be able to attract world-class leadership, as has been the case with Transport for London. That is urgent and necessary, as the fines for missing the landfill regime loom nearer.
 The benefits offered by a single waste authority proposal clearly outweigh any short-term difficulties presented by transition. It will make a positive contribution to the climate change agenda; help increase recycling dramatically; help deliver new and emerging recovery technologies for waste management; enable London to meet the requirements of the landfill directive; enable London to become regionally self-sufficient in the management of its municipal waste; ensure that waste is managed as close to the point of production as possible; reduce the risk of Government fines for failing to deliver under the landfill directive; improve the commercial attractiveness of the London waste market; promote economies of scale and the development of a single, resourced centre of procurement; and standardise contract conditions.
Ultimately, it comes down to risk. The Government contend that the structural change during the move from the existing arrangements to a single waste authority would place the arrangements at risk—

Andrew Pelling: I am very aware that the hon. Lady is coming to a conclusion. However, would it not be possible for the boroughs themselves to capture such economies of scale? That approach is being taken in south London, between boroughs from Croydon to Richmond, under the new waste contract that they are considering. Surely it is better to give the initiative to local authorities, which are aware of the concerns about performance on waste in London.

Karen Buck: It is certainly true that partnerships between local authorities can produce greater economies of scale than when they act on their own. However, the counter-argument boils down to this: given relative performance in London, that has not happened in recent years since the abolition of the Greater London council and the clarity of structure that existed then. Across a range of indicators, such as recycling and other aspects of performance, not only have London authorities failed to meet that challenge, but in the much tougher environment of the coming years and the stricter regimes that will apply—the fines and other pressures that will bear down on such authorities—there are no realistic signs of their being able to meet the challenge.
 In conclusion, it is clear to me that the risks of making the changes to the structure are more than heavily outweighed by the Mayor’s proven track record of delivery on comparable services, as well as by the necessity of ensuring investment in recycling plant and new technologies and ensuring that although incineration has a part to play, it is promoted only when it has other beneficial side effects. Incineration should not be allowed to squeeze out other technologies—there is a risk of that.

Stephen Pound: Does my hon. Friend have some sympathy with the point made by the hon. Memberfor Croydon, Central? Is my hon. Friend aware thatin 1985 the Minister with responsibility for local government, Lord Baker, referred to extensive discussions and imminent co-operation between boroughs such as Bromley, Croydon, Sutton, Merton and Kingston upon Thames? Is she aware that,20 years later, that co-operation has not taken place and that the tide seems to be flowing in the other direction, as demonstrated by the capital standards mayoral initiative? The five boroughs that initially refused to join that scheme are about to be joined by three boroughs that since May 2006 have announced their intention of leaving. Is not the move away from a voluntary coming together and towards a more fissiparous model?

Karen Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rightly drawing my attention to those facts. I was reaching a conclusion, which is this: we need urgently to rise to the environmental, value-for-money and economic challenges of this agenda, but there are few signs that London boroughs, either individually or collectively, can do that. That is the case often for good reason, but it is sometimes because, as he says, we are moving in opposite directions.
If the Government were to recognise that the well intentioned but messy and ineffective proposals on the table are not sufficient to allow us to rise to those challenges, it would be a timely and necessary step. I hope that Ministers are willing to be persuaded by the Mayor’s argument and to make changes to their proposals, even at this late stage.

Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Mayor’s proposals for a London strategic waste authority, which were so enthusiastically endorsed by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. If only the enthusiasm of Labour Members for the Mayor’s policies were reciprocated by the Mayor in relation to Government policies. I understand that this morning the Mayor described the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as the carbon kid. There is a danger that the Mayor’s actions will mean that London becomes the worst performer in Europe on recycling rates. I am afraid that the process of enthusiasm and endorsement goes one way between Labour Members and the Mayor.
I agree with one point that that hon. Lady made: the performance of a number of London boroughs on recycling is pathetic. There is no other way to describe the situation. We agree on the need for LondonCouncils to run with the issue much more enthusiastically.
 The Mayor is seeking a fifth functional body—the London single waste authority—which would operate like the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. He wants responsibility for disposal but not for collection, although interestingly he has said that he wants appropriate oversight of waste collection contracts. I shall return to that shortly. The body would be funded by central Government grants and the Greater London authority precept. That would introduce a disconnect between what local people pay in tax and the disposal of their waste, which is a significant issue.
 I can see that there are arguments in favour of the proposal—the idea of London-wide co-ordination, the possibility of improving performance through pooling resources and expertise, increased investment in sustainable waste management, and, possibly, long-term cost savings, although the Government’s investigation of that suggested that the costs may rise rather than fall.
The perceived benefits of the single waste authority are outweighed by the arguments against it and the comparisons that have been made are not terribly helpful. London councils are generally doing well compared with other metropolitan counties and, as I said earlier, there is potential for the proposal to incur greater costs than currently apply. There is a lack of cohesion, which I have already referred to, if a break is made between collection and disposal. Such a disconnection has already happened in other parts of the country, where it has not always been helpful. There is a loss of accountability at a borough level when the precept is raised by the Mayor, with local people feeling that they do not have any great say over what is being spent locally.
Many boroughs’ performance in areas such as recycling plays a significant part in success or otherwise at elections. That would be lost if the Mayor was to exercise what he suggests is appropriate oversight over waste collection contracts. There is also the potential for disproportionate regional impacts. If a scheme is organised on a London-wide basis, there is the possibility that certain parts of London will find a lot more waste disposal activity going on in their patch. That link between collection, disposal and recycling should be local, because only on that basis will people accept the way in which their waste is dealt with.

Siobhain McDonagh: I would like to ask for clarification, because I may have misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Surely the purpose of recycling is not just to make councils look good, but to ensure that we take account of the very serious environmental issues that are affecting us as people who live in an ever-expanding city. We have to redouble and retreble our recycling efforts, rather than merely feeling that we are being warm and friendly about it and that that makes us look good.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I am sorry if I gave the impression that recycling should be done only for appearances’ sake. Certainly, that is not the case for my own local authority, which has done very well on that score.
The best way to respond to the hon. Lady’s proposal is to look at what can happen on the ground. I had a conversation earlier today with Councillor Colin Hall, who leads on environment issues for Sutton, which has a very good track record in this respect. First, many boroughs are already delivering on recycling. The economies of scale, which were highlighted in an intervention made from the official Opposition Benches, can be achieved already.
 Kingston, Croydon, Merton and Sutton are in a voluntary agreement to look at waste procurement, and Sutton is taking the lead on that issue. There is a legitimate concern that a pan-London proposal would neglect the importance of dealing with issues at a very local level. In Sutton, for example, research demonstrates that in Cheam, which is part of the borough, people will recycle bottles door to door. Therefore, there is perhaps a case for expanding that service at a very local level in the Cheam area. In St. Helier, however, the provision of extra bottle banks or additional facilities for paper or cardboard may be appropriate to help to boost recycling efforts. That is the sort of knowledge that the Mayor cannot have.

Andrew Slaughter: From what I have read on climate change, I was beginning to think that China was the big problem. However, if Cheam could solve the difficulties of climate change, I would be greatly relieved. Is this not an example of the tail wagging the dog? I know that the Liberal Democrats do not have many party activists now, but is Councillor Scroggins, or whatever his name is, to dictate national policy? I am afraid that Cheam on its own, however commendable its record, would not solve London’s waste problems, and the hon. Gentleman needs to look at things on a slightly bigger scale.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman should be very careful. He has just maligned the residents of Cheam, who I am sure will be very interested to hear what he has to say. In all his interventions, he has neglected his own constituents, preferring to refer repeatedly to Hammersmith and Fulham.
To address the hon. Gentleman’s serious point, I am talking about what happens at a ground level. If something is effective, it should be allowed to continue and there is no need for the Mayor to intervene.

Andrew Pelling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is an excess of bottles—wine or otherwise—in Cheam. Has not the experience in Sutton demonstrated how local politicians can be much more sensitive to the controversies over waste collection? I recall that a previous Member for Sutton and Cheam, Lady Olga Maitland, became known as the bin lady owing to her concern about recycling. Surely, the way in which the council eventually gave way before significant pressures, particularly from local activists, including Conservative councillors, showed that such decisions are best made locally, rather than regionally.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention. He is, of course, right that local politicians and councillors are best placed to make those decisions. However, I would not recommend the approach adopted by the lady to whom he referred and who, I think, conducted most of her campaigning on the basis of the number of maggots in wheelie bins.

Siobhain McDonagh: On the hon. Gentleman’s point that such matters are best dealt with locally, what would he say to councillors in Kingston, Havering and Redbridge who are so far down the London councils recycling league table? I am sure he would agree that some councils, given the nature of their housing and other problems, are restricted and perhaps would perform less well than a suburban borough such as Sutton or my borough of Merton. But it seems unforgivable in Kingston, Havering and Redbridge.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. In my opening comments, I said that all local councils have a responsibility to do better, whether it be Sutton, which aims to achieve 50 per cent. by 2010, or the local authorities to which she referred, which might be trailing and at the bottom of the league.

Karen Buck: The point has been made by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members about local politicians being best placed to respond to local needs. There is a lot of truth in that, but is the problem not that on matters such as waste disposal, one local authority can take decisions that impact deleteriously on another? It is something of a free for all: for example, the city of Westminster sends much of its waste by road to Lewisham, sometimes via Wembley. That is not necessarily a case of local politicians responding to local needs; those in one area take decisions that might be fiercely opposed by local people in another. No one has overall responsibility.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for making a very important point linking the origin of waste with where it is dealt with. Her point is valid, but the concerns that she expressed about the current situation might be exacerbated by a single waste authority under which, with the greater concentration, it will be entirely possible for waste to travel even further to larger sites.

Bob Neill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the point made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North might have more force were it not for the fact that the Government, whom she supports, approved the building of an enormous waste incinerator at Belvedere, in the London borough of Bexley, to deal with waste being carted over from west London, despite the fact that Bexley has one of the best recycling records in London and that there was all-party opposition from the council and local residents?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—it is now on the record—but I risk straying down the route of individual anecdotes about Hammersmith and Fulham or Belvedere, and I will avoid that for the purposes of keeping my comments brief.
 The Mayor can already set the direction of travel on waste. He has a municipal strategy that local authorities should be delivering, and I encourage him to do everything that he can to ensure that they do. I apologise for being parochial, but I think that it is worth referring to examples of best practice. In Sutton, the Mayor fully endorsed the local authority’s approach by granting it £4 million to develop a site on which composting tunnels and a new Dano drum could be built. He has already expressed his support for what individual local authorities have done. That is the right approach. We all need to put pressure on local authorities to deliver on his agenda, but the creation of a monolithic pan-London waste authority run by the Mayor is not the best way to maximise recycling in London. It is down to the local knowledge of local boroughs to deliver on the agenda.

Andrew Slaughter: I shall be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North eloquently put the case for why the boroughs are not doing a very good job and why some of the Mayor’s powers and the structure under which he would operate would be a substantial advance on the status quo. A brief example will illustrate that. A body called the Western Riverside waste authority comprises four London boroughs: Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Wandsworth and Hammersmith and Fulham.

Greg Hands: Not Ealing, though.

Andrew Slaughter: I shall come to Ealing.
Since the authority was set up, it has disposed of those four boroughs’ waste. I have had a fruitless association with that body for more than 20 years. Indeed, when I was the vice-chairman of the dustbin and drain sub-committee in 1986, I was a voting member. This is how it worked: because there were eight members—four Labour, four Conservative—and because it previously had a Conservative majority and thus the chair retained a casting vote, for about12 years every vote was decided in favour of the interests of the two Conservative boroughs and against that of the two Labour boroughs. They were the most fractious and long-winded meetings that I have ever been to, and I have been to quite a few.
If we move forward 20 years through some pretty horrific decisions, mismanagement and incompetence by that body, we come to June 2005. I quote the first paragraph of a report by the Western Riverside waste authority:
“Last autumn, the authority instigated judicial review proceedings against Wandsworth council”—
one of its constituent bodies—
“in respect of decisions made about commercial waste collection. The authority agreed, at its meeting in November 2004, to suspend the clerk and the treasurer to the authority for the duration of the dispute because of the conflict of interest arising from their employment as chief officers at Wandsworth.”
Here we have a waste disposal body suing one of its constituent member councils and, in the meantime, suspending its senior officers because they are also the senior officers of that member council. I need not go into the causes of the dispute—suffice it to say that it was a characteristic attempt by Wandsworth council to bend the rules of commercial waste collection to avoid paying the same penalties as the other three boroughs—but what an absolute farce that a body charged with such a responsible task should operate in that way.
I say that because we have heard some complimentary things about the boroughs from Opposition Members. I have no doubt that some boroughs, in isolation, are trying to do a good job, or that many boroughs wish to do a good job. However, in many cases that is not working, and boroughs are not up to the job.
I must briefly respond to a plaintive letter that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North received from the Conservative leader of Ealing council. He asked me to support the Government on this issue and, as he is a reasonable, one nation sort of chap, I am minded to go along the route he suggests, despite all my reservations. It is unfortunate that the council leader was provoked to write only at the instigation of my hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, who first wrote to him. That story is getting confused in the telling.
I am sure that the borough of Ealing will do the best that it can on recycling. All the boroughs wish to do their best on recycling, but some have better schemes than others. The diversity of the schemes and the co-operation between collection and disposal is the Achilles heel in the fractious scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North described. It looks like we will end up with a continuation of that fractured scheme for longer. That is a complacent route to take, and it will not in the end deliver the waste disposal network that London needs.

Dawn Butler: I want to make a brief contribution to the debate as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North covered many of the main points.
Brent is ranked in the top 10 of the worst performing boroughs for recycling. In 2004-05, under a Labour administration, Brent was collecting around 8 per cent. By 2006, that had increased to 20 per cent. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the campaigning potential of recycling. That makes sense in Brent, because the council is now run by a Lib Dem-Tory administration—

Michael Gove: A sign of things to come.

Dawn Butler: Well, actually it is. In Brent, the administration is known as the “Fib Dem-Con” administration because of all the promises it makes but fails to deliver. Recycling is a case in point, because the “Fib Dem-Con” campaign promised to double the amount of recycling collection achieved by the Labour administration. As a result, Brent went from a record 20 per cent. to 20.2 per cent. Last week, a resident of Willesden complained that they had still not had their Christmas recycling collected, so we may yet see a reduction of that 20.2 per cent.
Although Brent is below the national average, and while Opposition parties see recycling as having campaigning potential and as a subject for political point scoring, we may never see collection levels at the 40 per cent. we would like to see. The fragmented system means that waste collection may never amount to the 40 per cent. that we could see under a single waste authority for London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North said, we have to consider climate change, and if we are totally serious about that, we need to consider having a single waste authority for London.

Siobhain McDonagh: I, too, rise to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North, but in doing so I find myself in a strange position. I do not necessarily see myself as a close political ally of the Mayor, or indeed as somebody who would normally oppose the Government’s provisions. My concern is that the Government may have backed away from their new Labour credentials, which are about public service reform, tackling issues of concern, and standing up to the establishment. The provisions in the Bill do not do those things and do not follow the tradition that has been incredibly successful in the Government.
 Recycling and environmental issues are not about nice little photo opportunities, feeling good about things, or somehow achieving an increase in the opinion polls; they are about the future for us and our children. If we are serious about this, we must start now and press now. It is all very well wanting to tax people’s flights or to restrict people’s quality of life, but by recycling and changing how we get rid of our waste, we can make substantial differences that benefit everybody and improve the quality of everybody’s life.
In 2005-06, London produced almost 1 million tonnes of non-household waste. Only 9 per cent. of it was recycled, compared with England’s figure of 30 per cent., and 22 of the 37 London waste authorities failed to meet their recycling targets. I have a great deal of respect for Sutton’s traditions and for its record, but this is not about being the best but about being the worst. It is about lifting everybody up, because the problem has an impact on all of us.
I was lucky enough to sit on the 1998 Standing Committee that scrutinised the great new Labour measure to introduce an executive Mayor for London. I believed that an executive Mayor would bring about a significant changes to London by virtue of his or her powers to do so. Irrespective of what party the executive Mayor for London represents, they can bring a substantial change in waste management in London and better all our environments. Even more importantly, they can avert the impending problem of being fined because we cannot do enough with our waste to prevent it going to landfill.

Tom Brake: The hon. Lady said that the proposal for a single waste authority was the new Labour agenda and that the Government should endorse it. Does she not see, however, that it contradicts another Government policy that the Department for Communities and Local Government advocates, which is devolution? Her proposal is anti-devolutionary.

Siobhain McDonagh: The proposal would tackle recycling and waste management in London. We are the only city in Britain to have more than one waste authority, we lag substantially behind other prominent European cities, and we must tackle the problem. Again, it is not about photo opportunities or about being seen to be good on such matters; it is about doing the right thing. I am interested in doing rather than posing, and the proposal would do that.

Michael Gove: It is a pleasure to speak after a fascinating debate in which several important issues were raised. The hon. Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North made a coherent case, underlining the way in which no one who takes climate change seriously can afford to ignore the impact of waste management. She also outlined, with a mixture of passion and authority, how a single waste authority for London might make a difference.
I should like to support the hon. Lady, but I cannot. Before I explain why, and why logic guides me, I shall say a few words about the other contributions. The hon. Member for Brent, South also spoke with passion and commitment about the importance of recycling, emphasising the way in which we cannot take climate change seriously unless we take recycling seriously. Brent’s Lib-Con alliance is in its infancy, and if it has made an improvement—albeit small and modest—to recycling, all I can say is that we ain’t seen nothing yet. 
I notice that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington flinched slightly when I suggested that Liberal-Conservative co-operation was the future. I acknowledge that such a view is not shared by all Liberal Democrats, but I am informed that more cerebral Liberal Democrats see it as the path to the future.
The speech by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was brief. Nevertheless, in its own way it was all the more effective for being sincere and from the heart. Unless I am much mistaken, although she confirmed such matters earlier in our deliberations, she is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary. The Government’s position is clear. They believe that a single waste authority is wrong. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that he considers it to be a misguided measure. The Minister who deals with waste at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also made that clear. The hon. Lady’s speech is a clear example of her departing from the doctrine of collective responsibility. I have a great deal of admiration for her courage in so doing, but a new precedent has been set. If she remains on the Government payroll after the debate today, a significant coach and horses has been driven through the doctrine of collective responsibility.

Siobhain McDonagh: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am on nobody’s payroll other than for a Back-Bench MP.

Michael Gove: I take it from that that the hon. Lady has announced her resignation as the Home Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. If not, she is bound by the principle of collective responsibility. She will be aware that last September several Parliamentary Private Secretaries wrote a letter to the Prime Minister encouraging him to hurry up the process of resigning. They, in turn, had to resign as a result of putting their name to that letter. The doctrine of collective responsibility should apply.
 Siobhain McDonagh indicated dissent.

Michael Gove: I am well aware that the hon. Lady is shaking her head. She may well be attached to the novel reinterpretation of the doctrine of collective responsibility that the Labour party now seems to be pioneering. The reinterpretation allows Ministers to campaign against the Government’s policy if it suits them in their own back yard.

Siobhain McDonagh: That is a myth that is being peddled. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the reconfiguration of health services. That is determined locally. I suggest that it is the duty of all Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, to represent their constituents and to work on their behalf.

Michael Gove: I appreciate the doctrine that an MP’s duty is to his constituency. Indeed, I take it seriously. I also take seriously the constitutional principle that in a Government the doctrine of collective responsibility applies. However, the Labour Government seem to be pioneering a new doctrine that, if a Minister does not happen to like how a nationally set policy affects his constituents, he has absolute freedom to campaign against it.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman’s words are jewels—perfectly polished, glittering and attracting many admirers. However, does he really have to take the subject of today’s discussion so seriously to recycle a comment that was fairly tendentious when it was first aired in Committee last week? If I may say so with respect, it has little to do with the substance of the matters that we are discussing this afternoon.

Michael Gove: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman appeals to procedure, when so much significant political cleavage has been made apparent. Conservative Members will certainly go into much greater detail about the Mayor’s plans for a single waste authority and the weaknesses of those plans. It is significant that a Parliamentary Private Secretary to someone who is a Cabinet Minister and a potential leadership challenger has signalled that she considers that the judgment of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is deficient on the central question of waste management. She is on the record as saying that he is wrong. In crude tabloid terms, it is a Government split. There is no other way in which to dress up the matter.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the doctrine was pioneered by allowing the present Mayor to stand as the Labour candidate for Mayor?

Edward O'Hara: Order. We really are departing from the main substance of debate.

Michael Gove: Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. I wish to turn briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush. In the early part of the 18th century, Jacobites furnished the hope that one day there would be a rising in the north and the west, and that the Scottish Jacobites would find themselves joined by individuals who proclaimed their allegiance to the king over the water on each occasion that it was safe to do so. But when push came to shove, those Jacobites found that their swords remained in their scabbard.
Thinking of those Jacobite lords, I am inevitably reminded of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, because the burden of his speech was an attack on the current system of waste management and the Western Riverside waste authority. I thought that he was gearing himself up to take his sword from his scabbard and to join the rebel band led by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, which has recently enjoyed the adherence of the hon. Members for Brent, South and for Mitcham and Morden, but at the final moment he kept his sword in his scabbard and said that he would vote with the Government. Implausibly, he asked us to believe that that was the result of a nice letter that the Conservative leader of Ealing borough council had sent him. We all know that the leader of that council is a persuasive individual. Nevertheless, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman’s decision might have rather more to do with the tender and persuasive powers of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, or possibly the prospect of a vacant PPS-ship—for example, that of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.

Stephen Pound: He already is one.

Michael Gove: I am reminded by the hon. Member for Ealing, North that the hon. Gentleman already has a PPS-ship. Perhaps there is some other plum dangling in front of him that he is anxious to taste.

Andrew Slaughter: I am sorry if I confused the hon. Gentleman, because I was seeking to do the exact opposite. Throughout the debate, I have tried to cut through and bring a little light into his elaborate but sometimes misleading discourse. I shall get in my retaliation first. I believe that we will hear a lot about the single waste authority, which is probably wrong, and about the boroughs, which are also wrong. I was trying to indicate that not all is necessarily well in the boroughs as they stand, just as all was not necessarily well in the Jacobite court of the 18th century. I do not know whether as an Aberdonian he is siding with the Duke of Cumberland, which would be an unusual course to take, or whether he is declaring his support for the Stuart king.

Edward O'Hara: Order. Much as I am truly enjoying the extended allegory, I would like to get to the centre of the debate.

Michael Gove: Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. As I said, the case for a single waste authority was put with passion by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, but I am afraid that the detail behind her argument does not hold up to the same degree of scrutiny that I and others might wish it to. We ask ourselves what is the evidence for a need for change, and the hon. Lady says that it is the poor record of recycling in London. I agree that many boroughs in London have a poor recycling record. One of the worst is Tower Hamlets, which has the second-worst recycling rate in the country after neighbouring Newham.
 We should be aware that both of those local authorities are run by Labour. Last year, Tower Hamlets recycled only 7 per cent. of its waste, well below its target of 18 per cent. If a local authority fails in that way, central intervention might be required or considered under this Government, with their adherence to targets and centralisation, and with hit squads being sent in to rescue residents when local authorities fail. But when a suggestion of intervention was raised, an official from the Government office for London said that the Government could not possibly intervene in the case of Tower Hamlets because the chief executive was married to a Minister—I shall spare his blushes and not name him—and another Minister who had a relevant interest in the case was the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is the Minister for London. So the Government acknowledge that Labour local authorities are failing but at the same time are sometimes reluctant to take the steps that might be necessary to bring them up to the mark.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman realises, I am sure—although he stopped short of advising the Committee, which may not be aware of it—that the official was taken to task and that rebuttals were issued by the Government office for London and Tower Hamlets, as well as the Department for Communities and Local Government. They said that action would be taken if it were necessary, regardless of the MP or connections to Ministers.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that clarification, but the fact remains on the record that Tower Hamlets and Newham have particularly bad recycling records. However, it is not my intention fruitlessly to criticise the local authority or the Government, because most local authorities in London have unique problems when it comes to recycling. It is right to compare London boroughs on their recycling records, but it is also appropriate to recognise that the situation is slightly easier in Sutton than it is in Tower Hamlets. One reason for that is that central London boroughs are more likely to have multi-storey developments, and we all know that flats and tenement blocks are the sorts of development in which it is more difficult to achieve higher recycling rates.

Karen Buck: To return to some of the statistics that I quoted in my speech, it is surely also true that the majority of the residential properties in many European and American cities are in high-rise apartments. Those cities have the same architectural structure as London, if not the same socio-economic structure.

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a valid point in inviting us to consider what happens in Europe. There are certain things that we can learn from Europe and the United States about improving waste management. However, to stick to the United Kingdom, it is unfair to demonise London. London counts as a region and has a form of regional government, but it is the only effective city region in the United Kingdom. Comparing the performances of London boroughs with other metropolitan boroughs is the only effective level of comparison. Doing so shows that the highest-performing boroughs on recycling are all London boroughs, although I do not want to be partisan about that. Some of the best-performing include boroughs such as Camden, which were until recently under Labour control, although the best-performing is Bexley. Other metropolitan boroughs outside London, in Liverpool, Wirral and—it pains me to acknowledge this—Knowsley, are not performing as well as they might.

Karen Buck: The hon. Gentleman has undermined his own argument. He has made the case that London deserves not to be compared with other cities because of the nature of our communities, but is it not also true that it includes the most deprived communities, which are more likely to have estates and therefore to face the most severe challenges in recycling, as compared with the leafy suburbs?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady amplifies one of my points, which is that one needs to take account of the problems that exist where there is a high level of high-rise blocks in an area. However, even the most urban boroughs in London tend to outperform as compared with the most densely populated urban boroughs in the United Kingdom, which either are similar socio-economically or have a similar architectural pattern. Overall, it is unfair to demonise London. We can acknowledge—as I have acknowledged, and as I suspect the Minister will acknowledge—that there is underperformance in certain London boroughs. However, when we consider the global picture of London overall, it is wrong to compare it with other UK regions. When we consider not only recycling overall, but dry recyclables—acknowledging the fact that little composting is going on in London—it is even more appropriate that London’s performance should be seen to be even stronger. That is a distinction that we should acknowledge.
 Having acknowledged that London’s performance is less bad than advocates of change would paint—indeed, it is better than that of comparable metropolitan boroughs—we need to consider what London is doing with its waste. London’s performance on recycling is more impressive than one might think from the Mayor’s briefing and the arguments of his allies. However, recycling is not the whole answer, as we know. There must be a method for waste disposal. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden pointed out that landfill is an inadequate way of proceeding, but only one London borough failed to meet its landfill target in 2005-06, which is the last year for which there are figures, while five metropolitan boroughs outside London failed to meet theirs. Again, when it comes to respecting the need to avoid landfill, London boroughs are doing better than one might think from the Mayor’s arguments. Also, many London waste authorities have landfill surpluses. The landfill trading system allows those that do well to have trading surpluses, and two authorities have traded their excess allowances. Again, London boroughs have exceeded the level of performance that central Government have asked of them.
 One of the ways in which such boroughs have attempted to do that is by embracing incineration. I take the point that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North made about incineration as currently practised not necessarily being everyone’s answer to the waste problem. I note with interest the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made about the Belvedere combined heat and power plant in south-east London. Having an incinerator in south-east London is perhaps not the best way to deal with waste coming from central London. However, the Belvedere proposal, which the Secretary of State approved and which the Mayor objected to, went to judicial review, when the Mayor’s objection was branded “hopeless” by the judicial body charged with overseeing that decision. That should give us pause for thought when considering whether the Mayor is the appropriate person to oversee this strategy.

Stephen Pound: I am reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, because he is making an important point. However, for the record, the Belvedere plant is not a CHP plant.

Michael Gove: My apologies. I understood that it was an incineration plant that was capable of generating energy. I am grateful for that clarification.
It is important to recognise that incineration is one of a range of tools that can be used in dealing with waste. It is not my favourite method—I suspect that it is few Committee members’ favourite method—but it has to be included in our range of proposals because, as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, the one thing that we want to avoid is landfill, for various reasons, including European regulation and various environmental factors that I suspect most Committee members agree with.
To avoid landfill, the Mayor invites us to consider a form of gasification and pyrolysis, but although that is a potentially attractive way of dealing with waste, the technology is relatively in its infancy. There are few examples of combined gasification and pyrolysis operating in the United Kingdom. Woking borough council, which advanced a proposal for consideration in Surrey, acknowledged that it was a revolutionary method to use in the UK. Gasification and pyrolysis might yield significant benefits, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, but the burden of my argument is that we cannot be certain that it will do so. We know that we cannot rely on landfill. Therefore, incineration has to be one of the methods at our disposal. Yet the Mayor has made it clear that, as far as he is concerned, incineration is out of the picture.

Karen Buck: I do not think that the difference between us is as great as the hon. Gentleman imagines. Surely, the Mayor’s preference is for a balanced strategy for waste disposal and, clearly, a recognition that there will be incineration capacity in that strategy for sometime. However, given London’s heavy reliance on incineration and the proportion of the UK’s total incineration capacity used by London, the central point is that new and developing technologies that require encouragement and investment get squeezed out by incineration, which deals with the waste that has shifted over from landfill.

Michael Gove: I take the hon. Lady’s point. She may be right: the difference may be less than I depicted. However, it is instructive that the Mayor has not only opposed the Belvedere plant—albeit other Committee members might think that he had good reasons for doing so—but lobbied against an extension of incineration in Edmonton and expressed concernabout certain western boroughs sending waste for incineration near Slough, in Berkshire. At every point when boroughs have attempted to use incineration to avoid transgressing landfill targets, the Mayor has been on the side of preventing them doing so, which is a matter of concern.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman mentions Slough. The Mayor of London is concerned that Slough has recently signed contracts for disposal with Poole in Dorset and Wiltshire county council. One of the problems with the unco-ordinated approach is that waste is trucked along the M25 from Wiltshire and Dorset to Slough. That is a critique not of the plant at Slough, but of the system that allows specialist centres to draw in rubbish from outside their own area. That is a severe problem.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It might fall outside the scope of the Committee—that has not stopped us in the past, though—to discuss whether local authorities in the west of England should be sending their waste to near Slough to be dealt with. That is only a couple of kilometres beyond the boundary of Greater London, however, and seems to be an appropriate place to be used by authorities in Hillingdon, Brent, Hounslow, Harrow and Richmond—the authorities currently using it. Yet the Mayor seemed unhappy for reasons to do not with London, but with his broader approach to waste. Again, that makes me think that we should be a little cautious about accepting the arguments advanced so ably by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, under a single waste authority, the risk of the Mayor setting up a very limited number of key waste disposal sites, and thereby increasing the number of journeys required to transport refuse to those points, would be the same?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point: there is no automatic link between the Mayor’s powers under a single waste strategy and a necessarily short journey from collection to disposal, be that by incineration or another means.
Having established that the Mayor has shown an antipathy towards incineration and has, as it were, bet the recycling ranch on untested technologies, we should be cautious about giving him those powers. More than that, it is appropriate to recognise that, if they were granted to him, the link would be broken between the collection and disposal of waste. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was right in acknowledging that. There is a division already in rural areas such as shire counties and boroughs.
One of the successes of the London boroughs that have reformed their recycling rate and dealt effectively with waste has been the way in which collection and disposal have been effectively integrated. More broadly, the integration of collection and disposal in London boroughs brings together street cleaning and the tackling of litter. Although we are all aware of the problem of grime, dirt and litter in London, it has moved down the agenda and list of issues that concern London voters. That is a reflection of the way in which certain boroughs—I shall refrain from making partisan political points—have made their streets brighter.
We are not denying the Mayor an important voice in shaping how London deals with waste. Indeed, the Bill gives him the power to amplify his voice through his waste strategy. It talks about the need for London boroughs to co-operate effectively with the Mayor when discharging their responsibilities in order to conform to the strategy. As we discussed on the previous planning legislation, the Mayor has an enhanced role in dealing with waste plants. He has greater freedom to intervene. One might expect Conservative Members to be concerned about that—legitimate concerns could be raised—but in the spirit of achieving cross-party consensus on the vital issue of climate change, we recognise that the Government make a decent case for their proposals. However, the Mayor still has a number of levers to pull in encouraging a more effective waste strategy and we do not believe that we should move to a single waste authority while those levers are still in place
Finally, the Government have talked about what might happen when the London waste and recycling forum is set up, to which they have allocated potentially £25 million. That money can be spent only on improving waste management and recycling and only if boroughs, the assembly and the Mayor can get onwith the job as defined in the Bill, not the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. Impressed as I was by the focus that she has brought to the debate and admiring as I was of the passion with which she spoke, I fear that the largest Opposition party will not vote for her amendment.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again this afternoon, Mr. O’Hara. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North for moving her amendment, which has allowed us to have this discussion. The usual channels thought that the whole day may be taken up with planning, so I am grateful that we have managed to reach some of these items. Possibly the only point of agreement between she and I, however, is that we both want to see some improvement in performance—a point on which I am sure that no one dissents.
It is regrettable that the Mayor has decided to resort to name calling on the subject of this discussion. PA describes his disagreement with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as a personal attack. I find that slightly strange because I know that the Mayor has a high regard for my right hon. Friend, and I hope that the discussion can take place in the same spirit as the one in which the amendment was moved by my hon. Friend.
The Government want to enhance the Greater London authority’s strategic role in dealing with London's waste. Through clauses 36 and 37, we have proposed amendments to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 which will strengthen the GLA's role further. We are at a crucial stage in delivering a step change in how waste is managed nationally, in order to reduce the environmental impact of our waste and to meet challenging European targets for diverting waste from landfill.
It is clearly important to be aware of the distinction between landfill diversion and recycling. There are many ways to avoid landfill, including reducing waste production in the first place, recycling, and treatments to convert waste into energy. We face significant fines if we do not achieve our EU landfill diversion targets, but I am pleased to say that early indications are that London is rising to the challenge. Figures for 2005-06 show that London is outperforming other regions. In fact, London is second best only to the west midlands in making progress towards meeting its allocations for 2010. Recycling is of course also very important. Performance on it in London is mixed. Two London boroughs—Sutton and Bexley—have been awarded beacon status on waste and recycling, whereas Tower Hamlets, as has been mentioned, is at the bottom of the national waste recycling league table. Some boroughs need to make major improvements, and the Government are working with them to ensure that that happens.
Some of London’s success on landfill diversion is due to its above-average use of energy from waste technology. Data from other EU member states demonstrates that use of incineration is completely compatible with high recycling rates. Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, which are considered to be green countries, all have much higher recycling rates than the UK, although they rely on incineration technologies as well. Belgium is another example. It recycles 60 per cent. of its waste and incinerates 30 per cent.
We have not seen any convincing evidence to suggest that a single waste authority for London will deliver improvements in waste management or cost efficiencies. In fact, we believe that we have seen contrary evidence, suggesting that a single waste disposal authority could result in extra costs to the Government and extra costs to the boroughs, and could put our landfill diversion targets at risk. If the UK failed in its targets, the resulting fines could be equivalent to as much as 5 per cent. on the council tax bills of Londoners.
The proposed amendments would not give the Mayor full control of recycling, and so may do little to help to boost recycling rates in the capital. Instead, they would split control over collection and recycling, and dispose of responsibilities between two, different political bodies. That is why the vast majority of London boroughs, irrespective of political colour, are opposed to a single waste authority for London.
The first EU landfill diversion target is just three years away, and we face significant fines if it is missed. The creation of a new single waste authority could threaten the good progress that the latest figures show London to be making. During the transition to a single authority, Londoners would have no incentive to drive forward investment in the new waste facilities that are needed in London.
Over the past year, the Government have thought long and hard about London’s waste. Our position has been informed by public consultation and by a number of detailed consultancy reports, and our considered view is that to reorganise waste arrangements now would divert attention and resources at a crucial time and lead to a performance dip that would put achievement of our EU targets at risk. We therefore see little benefit in making significant and costly changes to the way in which waste functions are delivered at local and regional levels. Instead, efforts and resources should be focused on improving diversion and recycling performance within current structures.
I shall return to the detail of the amendments and new clauses, but first I shall set out the Government’s proposals in clauses 36 and 37. Clause 36 introduces a requirement on London’s waste collection and disposal authorities to
“act in general conformity with”
the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy when exercising certain functions. Section 353 of the 1999 Act requires the Mayor of London to prepare and publish a document known as the municipal waste management strategy, which sets the strategic direction for London’s waste activities. Section 355 requires waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities in Greater London to “have regard to” the municipal waste management strategy when carrying out their waste functions.
Clause 36 amends section 355 of the 1999 Act, and it requires waste collection and waste disposal authorities in Greater London to
“act in general conformity with”
the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy when exercising any of their waste functions underpart 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The duty has effect only to the extent that it does not impose additional excessive cost or require an authority to breach or terminate a contract.
The clause includes a transition provision to deal with contracts in procurement when the Bill is enacted. To ensure greater clarity, we are considering amending the wording of the clause. Further, if the Mayor revises his municipal waste management strategy, no authority should have to breach a contract, and a borough would need to be only in general conformity with the strategy that existed when contracts were made.
The clause includes a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the definition of general conformity and excessive additional costs. The enhancement of the Mayor’s powers to require waste authorities to deliver services in general conformity with his strategy, along with his existing power of direction, will help to deliver the strategic vision that the Mayor sets out for London.
Clause 37 amends section 358 of the 1999 Act on information about new waste contracts, and it updates the Act following changes to public procurement legislation. It will strengthen the requirement for authorities to inform the Mayor before putting waste contracts out to tender.
Under existing legislation it is not always necessary for London waste authorities to inform the Mayor before putting waste contracts out to tender. The clause adds a provision so that where authorities are obliged neither to send the European Commission a first information notice of their intention to tender a waste contract nor to publish the authorities’ buyers profile, but they are obliged to send a second information notice, they must inform the Mayor of their intention to tender. They will be required to notify the Mayor 108 days before issuing the second information notice. The amendments would ensure that the Mayor was informed of all waste tenders in advance.
By strengthening the requirement for boroughs to inform the Mayor if they are to tender a contract, we will ensure that the Mayor has a role in procurement decisions and that the Mayor’s vision and policies are implemented locally when waste authorities deliver their functions.
Amendment No. 64 would extend the Mayor’s power of direction so that he could direct London waste collection and waste disposal authorities’ management of waste past the second information notice stage of their tendering for a waste contract. Extending the Mayor’s power of direction beyond that stage would create uncertainty and it might make the waste industry less willing to engage in procurement with authorities. For that reason we oppose the amendment. 
Amendment No. 62, new clauses 35, 36, 39 and 40 and new schedules 1, 2 and 3 seek to amend the 1999 Act to establish and give powers and duties to a single waste disposal authority for London—the London waste authority. It is obvious that we do not accept them. I have already set out in detail our position on the matter. The amendments would fundamentally change how London manages its waste, and the Government firmly believe that waste services are best operated locally, as I and many hon. Members from all parties have described.
 On new clause 37, it is difficult to understand what purpose would be served by a minerals and waste development scheme for London, because the Mayor does not have responsibility for preparing the associated development plan documents on minerals and waste. That is the responsibility of the boroughs. Clearly, the purpose of the amendment is that the Mayor should prepare a MWDS and take responsibility for site-specific plan-making for waste and minerals sites, but that is also the wrong balance of decision making. Site-specific plans should be made by boroughs, which have the required intimate local knowledge, while the Mayor should maintain a strategic policy direction.
 If the concern behind the amendment centres on the timetabling and speed of plan-making at borough level, a MWDS for London, prepared by the Mayor, would add no benefit because the proposed new planning powers—for example, in clause 30—to allow the Mayor to direct changes to boroughs’ LDSs give the Mayor sufficient influence over the timetable for the production of minerals and waste policies by boroughs throughout London.
Now that the Mayor has published a suite of strategic waste policies in his early alteration and draft alteration to the London plan containing a borough-level apportionment of waste—both were both published in December 2006—boroughs have a clear framework for local plan-making that they did not have in the past. They are now expected to implement the strategic framework set out in the London plan, and by allocating sites for waste facilities they will encourage planning applications to come forward, leading to the delivery of facilities on the ground.
The purpose of the amendment may be to ensure that the timetable for the review of the Mayor’s strategic minerals and waste policies is produced. The Mayor’s special development strategy—the London plan—incorporates regional strategic policies on minerals and waste which can be amended and updated as necessary, as they were in the early alterations to the London plan published in December 2006.
The timetable for review of the London plan in the form of an LDS-type document is unnecessary. The arrangement for timetabling the SDS is set out in Government office for London circular 1/2000 and involves establishing an indicative target time scale and resources, and publicly adopting the timetable at the outset. That approach has been effective and is comparable with the arrangements for other regions outside London.
New clause 38 would amend sections 353, 355 and 357 of the 1999 Act. Section 353 relates to the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy. The relevant amendment would widen the scope of the strategy to include litter. The Government believe that litter policies are also best dealt with at local level and in accordance with local needs and circumstances. The proposed amendment to section 355 would require waste collection and disposal authorities to act in general conformity with the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy when clearing litter and refuse. However, the removal of litter and refuse from land under existing duties involves a variety of other agencies, including statutory undertakers, the Crown and governing bodies of educational institutions, as well as local authorities. Therefore, it is appropriate that strategies for dealing with litter are developed locally in London, as elsewhere. There are already sufficient partnership arrangements in place through the capital standards programme to allow for co-ordination at regional level. On the amendment to section 357, the new clause proposes a single waste authority, on which I have already explained the Government’s position. For those reasons, I must strongly resist this new clause.
Finally, on new clause 42, litter functions are dealt with at local level by the boroughs working closely with partners and others that have responsibility for clearing litter and refuse. Currently, they do not have to provide any information to the Mayor before putting street cleansing contracts out to tender. The new clause would enable the Mayor to have oversight of procurement activity for street cleansing and thereby assist him in promoting and encouraging best practice with inner London boroughs.
I have some sympathy with the principle of the amendment, and would welcome the opportunity to consider it further. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press it to a Division. I have explained that I cannot accept his other amendments.I said that London is improving its recycling arrangements, but the amendments would leave waste collection services, including the recycling service, with the boroughs, so they would not change the current arrangements.
My hon. Friend suggested that boroughs do not have plans to meet 2014 targets. Restructuring now would increase the risk of fines by delaying plans that are already in place—for example, the mechanical and biological treatments in Havering and Newham, which should come online with full capacity this year, and the Belvedere energy-from-waste facility, which is due to come online in 2010.
On splitting collection and disposal, there are problems in shire areas, as some districts are not providing counties with the data they need to meet their obligations under the landfill directive. Joint waste disposal authorities are run by the borough representatives, as my hon. Friend knows, and so reflect local needs. Splitting collection and disposal between completely separate political bodies could cause problems because new technologies need the integration of collection and disposal.
I hope that I have been able to reassure hon. Members of the robustness of the Government’s approach to managing London’s waste. I urge my hon. Friend not to press her amendments and new clauses to Divisions, and I hope that clauses 36 and 37 will stand part of the Bill.

Karen Buck: I shall be brief. The comments made by the Minister and by Opposition Members fall into two categories. The first is that we are basically doing all right, so any fundamental changes such as those I have proposed would pose a risk to the objectives, which I think we broadly share. The second, stressed by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, is that there is a conflict between the Government’s devolutionary intentions and the centralising of responsibility involved in the creation of a single waste authority.
I do not accept either of those arguments. We are not doing well enough. It is fair to say, as the Minister did, that there has recently been a degree of improvement in recycling performance and that the core responsibilities for collection and recycling would remain with the boroughs. However, we face a number of challenges, across the spectrum, that will only intensify as targets bite more severely, and that entails the fundamental risk that authorities will be faced with fines or landfill charges.
There has been a degree of improvement on recycling, but we are being asked to accept mediocrity. In the face of both external challenges, such as population growth, and the fundamental policy objective of rising to the test of climate change, we need to do something that is better than mediocre. We must make London as great a city on these issues as we seek, in many ways successfully, to make it on a number of other fronts. That point was drawn out by my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South and for Mitcham and Morden. I thank them for their contributions.
As I tried to illustrate, I accept the devolution argument, but we must make a pragmatic and not an ideological judgment about which duties fit most comfortably at the strategic level and which fit locally.

Tom Brake: I just wonder whether the hon. Lady can explain why she is so certain that a single waste authority would create the dramatic improvements that she seeks. Is it not the case that, in the initial stages, the mere setting-up of such an authority would undoubtedly have an impact on boroughs’ abilities to recycle, because they would be focusing on reorganisation?

Karen Buck: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument against any change ever. When there is structural change, there is always the risk that during the period of reorganisation those involved are not focusing on their core functions. That argument does not apply to anything else that the Government are doing, but let us put it to one side.
 Of course there is an element of risk. The issue lies in the fact that a single authority would be able to commission, to ensure that there is an ability to be strategic, to examine planning capacity for recycling plants, to take decisions to invest in new technologies London-wide, to ensure that contracts for procurement across the entire city are economic and efficient and allow the development of recycling and new technologies to help to meet our environmental objectives, in a way that some boroughs are simply not able to do as they handle only 50,000 tonnes of waste a year.
 The other point is on devolution. As I said in my example about Westminster, what is in the interests of one borough and what may have the support of residents in that borough may not necessarily be in the strategic interests of Londoners, including future Londoners affected by climate change, or in the interests of those other boroughs through which the rubbish collected by borough A may have to be driven in order to be taken to plants in other parts of the city or even outside the city. I am not convinced by that argument.
We need to make a step change in order to rise to our climate change targets and to ensure that we do not fall foul of landfill tax fines. I am not convinced that the Government’s approach will enable us to make that step change. It is complex and bureaucratic matter. Indeed, it enshrines the sort of conflict that my hon. Friend the Minister said that he hoped to avoid.
I have failed to convince my hon. Friend and the Government to my way of thinking. Judging by the remarks made by Opposition Members, I have failed to persuade them. Not being of a martyr tendency, and wishing to return to the subject, I shall resume my seat.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan Shaw.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Seven o’clock till Thursday 18 January at half-past Nine o’clock.